Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
So happy Mitt will be president
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


guangzhou


Feb 8, 2012, 5:39 PM
Post #76 of 206 (1702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:

For the last five years I've invested 20% of my income directly in growing existing companies or starting new ones, which creates jobs. In otherwords, 20% of my income, isn't mine, I never get to use it personally, it always goes to creating jobs. If you tax me too much, this won't happen, simply put.

In addition, another 20% of my income is invested in personal and commercial real estate, new construction, which also creates jobs.

I have four different savings accounts, when I get paid, 40% is immediately transferred to these accounts, it's never for me to use. You can't create jobs without capital, you at least need some skin in the game for every investment, whatever it is, in most cases. There's always exceptions.

That being said, if I had the opportunity to have an iron clad guarantee that the extra tax I paid would actually go towards paying the debt down, I would do it, for a term, like five years. I'd tighten the belt buckle a little, for my country and it's future.

In otherwords, if we first of all stop going into debt, and a tax hike was in place strictly being used to pay the existing debt down for a period of time with a plan, I'm for it. Since this isn't a reality anytime soon, we'll have to do it through attrition, but raising taxes will shrink revenue not grow it, long term.

Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.


petsfed


Feb 8, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #77 of 206 (1698 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [guangzhou] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.

There are two populations whose effective taxation rate is around 15%. Believe me when I tell you that when somebody whines about being able to only save or invest 60% of their income, and if we raised taxes on them where will be?, it rings pretty fucking hollow to anyone whose effective tax rate is 15%, but pays 80% of their income into rent, food, health insurance, and utilities.

The point of a progressive tax is that it takes the same fraction of your income less living expenses. That is, if everybody's living expenses are $2 a day, then the guy who makes $6 a day pays only 30%, but the guy who makes $10 a day pays 40%. They both end up with half of what's left over after living expenses. That's the point.

I'm glad that you make so much that you can invest wherever. Growth requires capital. But don't look to the poor folks (who are actively praying that the bus comes on time today so they don't lose their job, as they don't get paid enough to save money) for sympathy when you say *you* pay too much in taxes, and you pay the same fraction of your *total* income as them.


guangzhou


Feb 9, 2012, 4:13 AM
Post #78 of 206 (1686 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.

There are two populations whose effective taxation rate is around 15%. Believe me when I tell you that when somebody whines about being able to only save or invest 60% of their income, and if we raised taxes on them where will be?, it rings pretty fucking hollow to anyone whose effective tax rate is 15%, but pays 80% of their income into rent, food, health insurance, and utilities.

The point of a progressive tax is that it takes the same fraction of your income less living expenses. That is, if everybody's living expenses are $2 a day, then the guy who makes $6 a day pays only 30%, but the guy who makes $10 a day pays 40%. They both end up with half of what's left over after living expenses. That's the point.

I'm glad that you make so much that you can invest wherever. Growth requires capital. But don't look to the poor folks (who are actively praying that the bus comes on time today so they don't lose their job, as they don't get paid enough to save money) for sympathy when you say *you* pay too much in taxes, and you pay the same fraction of your *total* income as them.

Was this addressed at me?

I'm not saving 80 or 60% of my income, but I also don't believe in a progressive tax. I believe in a flat tax with zero tax breaks and loop holes.


ubu


Feb 9, 2012, 4:41 AM
Post #79 of 206 (1685 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [guangzhou] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
petsfed wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.

There are two populations whose effective taxation rate is around 15%. Believe me when I tell you that when somebody whines about being able to only save or invest 60% of their income, and if we raised taxes on them where will be?, it rings pretty fucking hollow to anyone whose effective tax rate is 15%, but pays 80% of their income into rent, food, health insurance, and utilities.

The point of a progressive tax is that it takes the same fraction of your income less living expenses. That is, if everybody's living expenses are $2 a day, then the guy who makes $6 a day pays only 30%, but the guy who makes $10 a day pays 40%. They both end up with half of what's left over after living expenses. That's the point.

I'm glad that you make so much that you can invest wherever. Growth requires capital. But don't look to the poor folks (who are actively praying that the bus comes on time today so they don't lose their job, as they don't get paid enough to save money) for sympathy when you say *you* pay too much in taxes, and you pay the same fraction of your *total* income as them.

Was this addressed at me?

I'm not saving 80 or 60% of my income, but I also don't believe in a progressive tax. I believe in a flat tax with zero tax breaks and loop holes.

"Flat tax" is a misnomer. A flat tax is by definition a regressive tax, for exactly the reasons pointed out by petsfed. I understand why people find the concept of a flat tax so appealing, but are you really in favor of regressive tax policy?


scrapedape


Feb 9, 2012, 5:24 AM
Post #80 of 206 (1676 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:

Now consider if taxes we're raised on me, 4%. Effectively, my total tax liability would grow much more than 4%. Assuming I have the same deductions year to year, raising taxes on me 4% would raise my effective tax rate last year from 12% tto about 15%. This means thousands of dollars less for me to invest with/leverage with.

-5

please show your work.


petsfed


Feb 9, 2012, 11:10 AM
Post #81 of 206 (1654 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [guangzhou] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Was this addressed at me?

I'm not saving 80 or 60% of my income, but I also don't believe in a progressive tax. I believe in a flat tax with zero tax breaks and loop holes.

No, it was meant as a followup to what you said, regarding flesh's distribution of income.

I think our current bracket system is a hobbled by the shear number of loopholes currently present, but if we could get those out of the way, I think it would be pretty fair.


guangzhou


Feb 9, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #82 of 206 (1634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Was this addressed at me?

I'm not saving 80 or 60% of my income, but I also don't believe in a progressive tax. I believe in a flat tax with zero tax breaks and loop holes.

No, it was meant as a followup to what you said, regarding flesh's distribution of income.

I think our current bracket system is a hobbled by the shear number of loopholes currently present, but if we could get those out of the way, I think it would be pretty fair.

I agree with you on loopholes. If you want people to pay a "fair share" of taxes, lose the loop holes. I for one will use as many as I can find for as long as they are there.


flesh


Feb 9, 2012, 11:25 PM
Post #83 of 206 (1622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [cracklover] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Flesh - the main reason why the economy isn't taking off is because housing prices are still flat/sinking. That's really it.

There have been numerous studies that show that when real estate goes up, people "feel" richer, and this is the best known indicator for personal spending in the US. So until the housing market turns around, the recovery will continue to be anemic.

Pretty much everything else is in place. Of course if Europe collapses, we'll probably go down the drain with them. But fingers crossed that that won't happen.

GO

I have a company that trains people to make money with loss mitigation and Deed in Lieu(helpign struggling home owners) and I agree, short term, things will definately get better when real estate does.

The question is, do you take a free market or big government approach to this. In the recent situation, due to complexity government was needed, but I think it over reached and perpetuated the problem.
. Long term is a different issue and I believe the national debt and raised taxes are the issue.


flesh


Feb 9, 2012, 11:31 PM
Post #84 of 206 (1620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [guangzhou] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
flesh wrote:

For the last five years I've invested 20% of my income directly in growing existing companies or starting new ones, which creates jobs. In otherwords, 20% of my income, isn't mine, I never get to use it personally, it always goes to creating jobs. If you tax me too much, this won't happen, simply put.

In addition, another 20% of my income is invested in personal and commercial real estate, new construction, which also creates jobs.

I have four different savings accounts, when I get paid, 40% is immediately transferred to these accounts, it's never for me to use. You can't create jobs without capital, you at least need some skin in the game for every investment, whatever it is, in most cases. There's always exceptions.

That being said, if I had the opportunity to have an iron clad guarantee that the extra tax I paid would actually go towards paying the debt down, I would do it, for a term, like five years. I'd tighten the belt buckle a little, for my country and it's future.

In otherwords, if we first of all stop going into debt, and a tax hike was in place strictly being used to pay the existing debt down for a period of time with a plan, I'm for it. Since this isn't a reality anytime soon, we'll have to do it through attrition, but raising taxes will shrink revenue not grow it, long term.

Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.

Assuming 14% effective tax rate and that I save invest another 40% and other variables it's about 50%

You must have added the 20 plus the 40 plus the tax. The 20 is part of the 40%. So it's just 40 plus taxes, basically.


flesh


Feb 9, 2012, 11:35 PM
Post #85 of 206 (1618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [scrapedape] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
flesh wrote:

Now consider if taxes we're raised on me, 4%. Effectively, my total tax liability would grow much more than 4%. Assuming I have the same deductions year to year, raising taxes on me 4% would raise my effective tax rate last year from 12% tto about 15%. This means thousands of dollars less for me to invest with/leverage with.

-5

please show your work.

I get paid w2 as an employeed in 2 of my companies and in distributions, dividends, and capital gains. The math is right. A smaller portion of my income would be w2 if you raised my tax rate, also, I would contribute more to tax deferred retirement accounts to save more money. It's complicated and I'm simplifying.


flesh


Feb 9, 2012, 11:54 PM
Post #86 of 206 (1615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Looking at these percentages, you live on 20% of your income. The rest is either invested or put into savings earning interest.

There are two populations whose effective taxation rate is around 15%. Believe me when I tell you that when somebody whines about being able to only save or invest 60% of their income, and if we raised taxes on them where will be?, it rings pretty fucking hollow to anyone whose effective tax rate is 15%, but pays 80% of their income into rent, food, health insurance, and utilities.

The point of a progressive tax is that it takes the same fraction of your income less living expenses. That is, if everybody's living expenses are $2 a day, then the guy who makes $6 a day pays only 30%, but the guy who makes $10 a day pays 40%. They both end up with half of what's left over after living expenses. That's the point.

I'm glad that you make so much that you can invest wherever. Growth requires capital. But don't look to the poor folks (who are actively praying that the bus comes on time today so they don't lose their job, as they don't get paid enough to save money) for sympathy when you say *you* pay too much in taxes, and you pay the same fraction of your *total* income as them.

I'm sure it's frustrating when you see such a low tax rate, but keep in mind, if I wasn't disciplined enough to save enough money then I couldn't contribute to tax defered accounts and my rate would be higher. Most people are not disciplined. Also, consider that at a minimum, 20% of my income is reinvested into growing existing or starting new businesses, I don't get to spend it. Most successful business owner/investors do something similar that I know.

I'm sure that me saying that if I wasn't diciplined I would pay more taxes and that I invest 20% into busineses which creates jobs seems irrelevent to you. Seems logical to me. Some folks pay higher tax and don't create jobs, some pay lower and do create jobs, business owners. Business owners usually are reinvesting and growing things, so they don't get to keep a large portion of their income, they don't get the money, just like someone paying higher taxes doesn't.

I started my first business by saving half of my income for four years. It was very difficult resisting the urges and pressures to buy what everyone else had. Keeping hope alive while doing without. I never went out to eat in college for example, I didn't go to bars, I couldn't afford to and save half my income.

By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

It's been this way since the beginning in this country. Business owners have always paid less. Apparently, it's working.

FYI, I don't think I pay to much in taxes currently, but I do believe that if eventually we could get rates down, it would be better for everyone.


Partner rrrADAM


Feb 10, 2012, 2:42 AM
Post #87 of 206 (1597 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

What's the big deal... A lot of people pay about 15% effective tax, myself included after I get my tax return due to deductions, mainly from mortgage interest.


guangzhou


Feb 10, 2012, 2:52 AM
Post #88 of 206 (1596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
There are two populations whose effective taxation rate is around 15%. Believe me when I tell you that when somebody whines about being able to only save or invest 60% of their income, and if we raised taxes on them where will be?, it rings pretty fucking hollow to anyone whose effective tax rate is 15%, but pays 80% of their income into rent, food, health insurance, and utilities.

I don't support paying more taxes because the government isn't good a managing it's budget. Do you really believe that the government getting an increase in tax revenue would mean they would use that money effectively?

The more money the government has, the more it spends on things they don't absolutely need.

In reply to:
The point of a progressive tax is that it takes the same fraction of your income less living expenses. That is, if everybody's living expenses are $2 a day, then the guy who makes $6 a day pays only 30%, but the guy who makes $10 a day pays 40%. They both end up with half of what's left over after living expenses. That's the point.

I know what the point is suppose to be, but it doesn't work that way. Some of us look for and use every option we can find to pay less taxes. Some people even hire professional to keep track of everything so they can save money.

Bottom line, I prefer to use the money I earn versus having a big government that decides how to best use it.

In reply to:
I'm glad that you make so much that you can invest wherever. Growth requires capital. But don't look to the poor folks (who are actively praying that the bus comes on time today so they don't lose their job, as they don't get paid enough to save money) for sympathy when you say *you* pay too much in taxes, and you pay the same fraction of your *total* income as them.

I've said it before, 90% of people in America could use a bit more discipline in how they handle themselves and their finances. People like to blame big corporations, but those cooperation only grow because people keep them in business buy buying the latest and newest device.

Last summer while travel in America, I saw people with minimum wage job on their I-phones and Blackberries. One of them was complaining about being broke all the time. When I asked him how he could afford and justify a Blackberry, he said he financed it and needed a cell phone really badly.

In reply to:
I'm sure it's frustrating when you see such a low tax rate, but keep in mind, if I wasn't disciplined enough to save enough money then I couldn't contribute to tax defered accounts and my rate would be higher. Most people are not disciplined. Also, consider that at a minimum, 20% of my income is reinvested into growing existing or starting new businesses, I don't get to spend it. Most successful business owner/investors do something similar that I know.

My tax level is even lower and has been for the past decade. Prior to that, I paid roughly the same as you, mostly because I owned a business also.

In reply to:
I'm sure that me saying that if I wasn't diciplined I would pay more taxes and that I invest 20% into busineses which creates jobs seems irrelevent to you. Seems logical to me. Some folks pay higher tax and don't create jobs, some pay lower and do create jobs, business owners. Business owners usually are reinvesting and growing things, so they don't get to keep a large portion of their income, they don't get the money, just like someone paying higher taxes doesn't.

To many people see a Blackberry or I-phone or second college degree as a good investment.

Most people want to blame some outside factor or force versus looking at their actions or lack of actions.

In reply to:
I started my first business by saving half of my income for four years. It was very difficult resisting the urges and pressures to buy what everyone else had. Keeping hope alive while doing without. I never went out to eat in college for example, I didn't go to bars, I couldn't afford to and save half my income.

Yikes, saving money for something you want versus financing it so you can have it now. Great concept.

In reply to:
By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

Agree 100%

In reply to:
It's been this way since the beginning in this country. Business owners have always paid less. Apparently, it's working.

FYI, I don't think I pay to much in taxes currently, but I do believe that if eventually we could get rates down, it would be better for everyone.

I do too.


petsfed


Feb 10, 2012, 9:09 AM
Post #89 of 206 (1574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
I'm sure that me saying that if I wasn't diciplined I would pay more taxes and that I invest 20% into busineses which creates jobs seems irrelevent to you.

No, it seems offensive to me. If you're disciplined and smart but still poor, then you're shunting what little extra money you have on health insurance. It remains the case that you MUST have a phone (either landline or cell) in case your employer needs to contact you, and you MUST have the means to get to work, either public transportation or a car.

I did the math once. At my poorest, I spent about $380 a month on rent and utilities, another $40 on food, and had a $40 phone plan. I didn't own a car, and walked everywhere. If I had lived in a place where I couldn't walk to work, I could expect around $5/day for transport to and from work. That raised my living expenses by another $1250/year (it works out the same if you own a car, have maintenance and registration fees, but completely ignores the cost of the car itself). When I had to pay out of pocket for insurance, it was another $100 a month, plus a $500 deductible. Adding up, my cost of living was $7970 a year, plus I had to save up for that deductible. I didn't though, because that was approximately my annual income.

This was all occurring when I was an undergrad, working on my first college degree. I got work study, but they pay minimum wage, and you're permitted a maximum of 12 hours a week. And before you tell me that I should've gotten a second job, I should remind you that I was pursuing a degree worth having, so my course-load, including studying and homework, worked out to be around 60 hours a week. If you can hold down a full-time job and be a full-time student at the same time, I'm happy for you. You will go on to (hopefully) be a leader in your industry. Working 100 hours a week should not be the bare minimum for entering the working world. During the summer, they'd let me work 40 hours a week, so I could actually save up some. Mostly, I'd spend it on frivolous excesses like spending $60 a month on groceries, or finally replacing my phone, or (oh how decadent!) replacing my tattered old clothes.

Now, I don't know the last time you tried to live on $10/week for food, but it sucks. That's not just discipline, that's watching your health slowly decline because of malnutrition. That's putting sugar on long-cook oatmeal because you haven't had anything sweet in 2 weeks. Most people spend at least $100 a month on food, and often quite a bit more. Nowadays, I spend about $125 a month, but since I live with my girlfriend, our net cost is lower than if we shopped for everything separately. Since we share a car, and can carpool, that lowers our cost dramatically. And since I make more than double what I used to, I can actually save for once. But make no mistake, I'm still below the poverty line.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 10, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #90 of 206 (1573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [guangzhou] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
flesh wrote:
By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

Agree 100%

Holy tautology batman.

But by this logic, you should only invest in companies that have already been successful and not in one that is new. You should never back a new company because it isn't proven to be successful yet.

Or is this a bias that people who work for private companies are better at making judgments than people who for the government because if they work for the g'ment they have shown that their judgment is flawed?

Or could it be that people make bad judgments, regardless of their organization. Could it also be that organizations (large and small and governmental) are built to hide bad judgments?


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 10, 2012, 9:28 AM
Post #91 of 206 (1571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [rrrADAM] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
What's the big deal... A lot of people pay about 15% effective tax, myself included after I get my tax return due to deductions, mainly from mortgage interest.

New RC.com soapbox requirement - post your tax returns like the presidential candidates.


flesh


Feb 10, 2012, 10:49 AM
Post #92 of 206 (1560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
flesh wrote:
By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

Agree 100%

Holy tautology batman.

But by this logic, you should only invest in companies that have already been successful and not in one that is new. You should never back a new company because it isn't proven to be successful yet.

Or is this a bias that people who work for private companies are better at making judgments than people who for the government because if they work for the g'ment they have shown that their judgment is flawed?

Or could it be that people make bad judgments, regardless of their organization. Could it also be that organizations (large and small and governmental) are built to hide bad judgments?

I'm talking about people, not companies, and yes, it's a good idea to invest into people who are starting companies that have already been successful starting companies as opposed to those who haven't as policy. Naturally, there are exceptions.


flesh


Feb 10, 2012, 11:07 AM
Post #93 of 206 (1558 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
flesh wrote:
I'm sure that me saying that if I wasn't diciplined I would pay more taxes and that I invest 20% into busineses which creates jobs seems irrelevent to you.

No, it seems offensive to me. If you're disciplined and smart but still poor, then you're shunting what little extra money you have on health insurance. It remains the case that you MUST have a phone (either landline or cell) in case your employer needs to contact you, and you MUST have the means to get to work, either public transportation or a car.

I did the math once. At my poorest, I spent about $380 a month on rent and utilities, another $40 on food, and had a $40 phone plan. I didn't own a car, and walked everywhere. If I had lived in a place where I couldn't walk to work, I could expect around $5/day for transport to and from work. That raised my living expenses by another $1250/year (it works out the same if you own a car, have maintenance and registration fees, but completely ignores the cost of the car itself). When I had to pay out of pocket for insurance, it was another $100 a month, plus a $500 deductible. Adding up, my cost of living was $7970 a year, plus I had to save up for that deductible. I didn't though, because that was approximately my annual income.

This was all occurring when I was an undergrad, working on my first college degree. I got work study, but they pay minimum wage, and you're permitted a maximum of 12 hours a week. And before you tell me that I should've gotten a second job, I should remind you that I was pursuing a degree worth having, so my course-load, including studying and homework, worked out to be around 60 hours a week. If you can hold down a full-time job and be a full-time student at the same time, I'm happy for you. You will go on to (hopefully) be a leader in your industry. Working 100 hours a week should not be the bare minimum for entering the working world. During the summer, they'd let me work 40 hours a week, so I could actually save up some. Mostly, I'd spend it on frivolous excesses like spending $60 a month on groceries, or finally replacing my phone, or (oh how decadent!) replacing my tattered old clothes.

Now, I don't know the last time you tried to live on $10/week for food, but it sucks. That's not just discipline, that's watching your health slowly decline because of malnutrition. That's putting sugar on long-cook oatmeal because you haven't had anything sweet in 2 weeks. Most people spend at least $100 a month on food, and often quite a bit more. Nowadays, I spend about $125 a month, but since I live with my girlfriend, our net cost is lower than if we shopped for everything separately. Since we share a car, and can carpool, that lowers our cost dramatically. And since I make more than double what I used to, I can actually save for once. But make no mistake, I'm still below the poverty line.

I'm glad you broke it down. I remember feeling that way. I'm sure that a hard working, educated, dicisplined person like yourself won't stay at your income level. It would be interesting to hear how you feel once all your hard work has paid off. I can remember turning bright red when I had pumped gas already and then my one and only debit card didn't go through. This seemed to happen a few times a year for a few years.

I don't think taxing business owners more and using the money for entitlements/ jobs programs will create more opportunity for you in the long run.


petsfed


Feb 10, 2012, 11:50 AM
Post #94 of 206 (1550 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Personally, I feel like either a flat tax with lots of progressive deductions (that is, the poorer you are, the more deductions you qualify for) or a progressive tax without any deductions would provide a better compromise (and a better revenue stream) than our I-make-enough-to-pay-my-lawyer-to-find-enough-deductions-to-get-me-out-of-paying-taxes set-up we have now.


petsfed


Feb 10, 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #95 of 206 (1547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Also, I'm a graduate student in physics, and my long term goal is to teach college level physics. So for me, its a serious problem if the state I work in gets on an austerity kick that cuts education funding, in part because my wage drops but also because the students I get drop in quality, so I have to work harder for the same results.

Both my father and my brother-in-law are highway engineers, and I moved around a lot as a kid because every time the locals got tired of paying taxes, it meant my dad was unemployed again, not because he was a state employee (he quit that shit after furlough days robbed him of his ability to support his family in 1987), but because infrastructure engineers need paying clients. We left Oregon in 1991 because of that, and he found work in Oregon in 2004, because their cessation of road work funding in 1991 meant that thousands of bridges needed repairs 13 years later.

My brother is a stage carpenter, so his employer depends on the continued existence and support of the National Endowment for the Arts. My sister is a police dispatcher, and a few years back, a proposed reduction in taxes would've put her and all of her coworkers out of a job.

I've always lived in a position that kept me well aware of where taxes go. I don't operate under the illusion that that money goes somewhere that I either don't use or don't want.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 10, 2012, 3:58 PM
Post #96 of 206 (1528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [flesh] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
flesh wrote:
By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

Agree 100%

Holy tautology batman.

But by this logic, you should only invest in companies that have already been successful and not in one that is new. You should never back a new company because it isn't proven to be successful yet.

Or is this a bias that people who work for private companies are better at making judgments than people who for the government because if they work for the g'ment they have shown that their judgment is flawed?

Or could it be that people make bad judgments, regardless of their organization. Could it also be that organizations (large and small and governmental) are built to hide bad judgments?

I'm talking about people, not companies, and yes, it's a good idea to invest into people who are starting companies that have already been successful starting companies as opposed to those who haven't as policy. Naturally, there are exceptions.

You mean, exceptions like people who are successful business. Unless there are people that wake up one day and are instantly successful, they must have not always been successful and therefore someone must have invested in someone before they were successful.

And, statistically - it is significant, but not deterministic.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6045.html


guangzhou


Feb 10, 2012, 6:23 PM
Post #97 of 206 (1502 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
By being successful in business, business owners have proven that putting the investment money in their capable hands are a better bet than someone who hasn't proven to be successful.

Agree 100%

In reply to:
Holy tautology batman.

But by this logic, you should only invest in companies that have already been successful and not in one that is new. You should never back a new company because it isn't proven to be successful yet.

Not only invest in company that are successful, but some of your investments should definitely be with them. They are safer, but that safety also means less return on your invest.
Low risk, yes still a risk.
Slow and steady growth.

Investing in a start-up is fine. Higher risk with higher return if things work out OK. Having someone with a successful history starting businesses makes it more likely they will have the skills and mindset to succeed. Some first timers succeed very well too, but their lack of experience means higher risk on investment.

Took me 5 years to find an investor I was willing to work with on this gym. I had some very important criteria and would not accept an investor who didn't meet them all.

I was knocking on doors and following lead. Six months since we opened, now investors are calling me. They see what we have done, they like the system we set-up, they like how we maange the business, and most importantly, they like the revenue-stream we can show. (Part of the original vision was agym franchise with 7 location in 5 years.)


In reply to:
Or is this a bias that people who work for private companies are better at making judgments than people who for the government because if they work for the g'ment they have shown that their judgment is flawed?

People can be good at their job no matter where they work. Being good at your job doesn't mean you're getting better pay.

Take GS positions for example. It's a pay scale, you earn your pay-scale based on level and years in, not how good you are. IN the private sector, you can at least negotiate for better wages based on your performance.

I spent five year in the military. During my last year, I taught rock climbing skills and earned E-5 pay. (not high) The month after I was out, I bid a contract to teach Big Wall Climbing Skills to the guys who wear Green Berets. The first six month contract earned me more than I earn in the previous 5 years combined. Over the next two years, I repeated the training three times.

When I was a soldier, I was on a pay-scale. For some reason, they noticed that I had useable skills and put me in a position to use them, but I could ask for pay that was in accordance to my skill. As a civilian, I could.

In reply to:
Or could it be that people make bad judgments, regardless of their organization. Could it also be that organizations (large and small and governmental) are built to hide bad judgments?

I agree.


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 10, 2012, 6:32 PM)


traddad


Feb 11, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #98 of 206 (1482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
Also, I'm a graduate student in physics, and my long term goal is to teach college level physics. So for me, its a serious problem if the state I work in gets on an austerity kick that cuts education funding, in part because my wage drops but also because the students I get drop in quality, so I have to work harder for the same results.

Both my father and my brother-in-law are highway engineers, and I moved around a lot as a kid because every time the locals got tired of paying taxes, it meant my dad was unemployed again, not because he was a state employee (he quit that shit after furlough days robbed him of his ability to support his family in 1987), but because infrastructure engineers need paying clients. We left Oregon in 1991 because of that, and he found work in Oregon in 2004, because their cessation of road work funding in 1991 meant that thousands of bridges needed repairs 13 years later.

My brother is a stage carpenter, so his employer depends on the continued existence and support of the National Endowment for the Arts. My sister is a police dispatcher, and a few years back, a proposed reduction in taxes would've put her and all of her coworkers out of a job.

I've always lived in a position that kept me well aware of where taxes go. I don't operate under the illusion that that money goes somewhere that I either don't use or don't want.

OK, I'm just going to go with the come back I got from the good folks here when I complained about being a State toxicologist that hasn't gotten a raise in ten years, (and actually had my pay reduced last year): Get another job that pays more. There. Done. Fixt. See how easy that was?


petsfed


Feb 11, 2012, 7:49 AM
Post #99 of 206 (1472 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [traddad] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Funny but true:

My dad heard that argument from one of his coworkers in the private sector and he replied "I did!"

And his coworker was all kinds of happy for him until my dad said "So my pay tripled, but my work load and job description remained unchanged, and now the company I work for is billing the government for 4 times what the government was paying me in the first place, for the SAME JOB".

My dad's a pretty conservative guy (we don't talk about social issues around him, for instance), but he's spent the last 30 years working in infrastructure in one fashion or another, and he believes that privatization and contracting has made it incredibly wasteful.

It is true though that you can triple your income by switching to the private sector, so it baffles me that people complain of government incompetence when the fact remains that the government can afford to retain only the least competent employees.


guangzhou


Feb 11, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #100 of 206 (1448 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [petsfed] So happy Mitt will be president [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
Funny but true:

My dad heard that argument from one of his coworkers in the private sector and he replied "I did!"

And his coworker was all kinds of happy for him until my dad said "So my pay tripled, but my work load and job description remained unchanged, and now the company I work for is billing the government for 4 times what the government was paying me in the first place, for the SAME JOB".

My dad's a pretty conservative guy (we don't talk about social issues around him, for instance), but he's spent the last 30 years working in infrastructure in one fashion or another, and he believes that privatization and contracting has made it incredibly wasteful.

It is true though that you can triple your income by switching to the private sector, so it baffles me that people complain of government incompetence when the fact remains that the government can afford to retain only the least competent employees.

I don't agree that the government only retains the least competent. Some very dedicated public service workers out there who could be making much more in the private sector bu choose not to.

Your dad's job is a good example. Yes, the private sector is charging 4 time what he made, but the government is still saving money by contracting out because of other expenses associated with government employees. (Retirement, medical, and other )

In America, we pay Federal Tax, State Taxes often, County Taxes, Property taxes, and then pay sales tax on good we buy. For our taxes we get the privileged of paying high tuition at State Universities, deteriorating Infa structure because the Federal government has to spread the fund across the entire country, and other issues to long to list.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$39.15 (10% off)
$76.46 (10% off)
$17.06 (10% off)
$175.00 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook