View Full Version : Let's Raise Taxes on the $250,000+ incomes
Business_Casual
11-11-12, 19:08
Why not? As Bill Kristol pointed out today, almost all of the people (not all) are blue-state liberals and work in industries or areas that support Obama, so why not give them what they want? Heck, let's give them 50% top marginal rates if they so desire.
Let's keep the cuts on the middle and upper-middle class. Let's broaden the tax base so that more Americans pay something. The rest can come from cuts in spending to balance the budget.
Why?
Why not?
bc
Because not "ALL" of us live in Blue states, and NOT "ALL" of us voted for it. :blink::blink:
As a business owner that employs people that would not be affected by the rape that you speak of, I can assure you, with certainty, that raising taxes on those that earn $250k+ would have the exact opposite effect than what is needed in this country (MORE JOBS). Couple that with Obamacare = double digit unemployment = less revenue for gov = less money for entitlements + more people on entitlements = more taking from job producers= even less jobs = even les revenue = and eventual, and inevitable collapse..
Less talk of taking from others and more talk and action of helping job creators creat more jobs is the answer.
If what we need is jobs (and it is) then the answer is not punishing job creators.
montanadave
11-11-12, 19:40
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order.
Bitter medicine? You bet. So shut up and swallow.
theblackknight
11-11-12, 20:10
I hate the whole loathing of the rich that is soo popular. Jealousy is ugly, But has anyone ever seen any reputable evidence(as in,not a crazy breibart article) that shows that trickle down economics is a job creator, and exactly how it does this?
Belmont31R
11-11-12, 20:20
Well over 1 trillion dollar yearly deficits. Everyone's taxes need to go up as well as getting rid of all the deductions and credits.
Taxing the rich isn't going to come CLOSE to getting the deficit to what it was even under Bush let alone balancing the budget.
montanadave
11-11-12, 20:22
The fact that we've had a decade of the Bush tax cuts, lax regulation of Wall Street, the lowest interest rates in forever which would seem to encourage business investment to achieve at least some reasonable rate of return, and additional payroll tax holidays leaves one to ask ... where's the beef?
Oh, right, I forgot. The argument is always the same. We just need to cut taxes more, abolish capital gains taxes, etc. Gimme, gimme, gimme and yet the payoff never comes.
The only "trickle down" is from the guy pissing on my back and telling me it's raining.
Cagemonkey
11-11-12, 20:25
Why not? As Bill Kristol pointed out today, almost all of the people (not all) are blue-state liberals and work in industries or areas that support Obama, so why not give them what they want? Heck, let's give them 50% top marginal rates if they so desire.
Let's keep the cuts on the middle and upper-middle class. Let's broaden the tax base so that more Americans pay something. The rest can come from cuts in spending to balance the budget.
Why?
Why not?
bc
Bill Kristol is a Neocon POS.
Belmont31R
11-11-12, 20:29
The fact that we've had a decade of the Bush tax cuts, lax regulation of Wall Street, the lowest interest rates in forever which would seem to encourage business investment to achieve at least some reasonable rate of return, and additional payroll tax holidays leaves one to ask ... where's the beef?
Oh, right, I forgot. The argument is always the same. We just need to cut taxes more, abolish capital gains taxes, etc. Gimme, gimme, gimme and yet the payoff never comes.
The only "trickle down" is from the guy pissing on my back and telling me it's raining.
They are all sitting on cash not wanting to risk anything, I guess. Not a 'Wall Street' fan but I do read and subscribe to WSJ...:p
Belmont31R
11-11-12, 20:30
Bill Kristol is a Neocon POS.
Yup. I tune him out every time I see him. He adds nothing of value.
Please, no more taxes, we can't afford to pay for $2000 water fountains anymore. :fie:
PA PATRIOT
11-11-12, 20:47
I say if your going to tax the rich then make the entitlement class give up the same percentage from their "Benefits".
A bit off the top and just a little bit off the bottom and throw in some sensible spending cuts for good measure and just maybe we can slow the bleeding.
Cagemonkey
11-11-12, 20:51
The entitlement class is where the Libs get all their votes and the only contribution they could make is mass suicide.
I say if your going to tax the rich then make the entitlement class give up the same percentage from their "Benefits".
A bit off the top and just a little bit off the bottom and throw in some sensible spending cuts for good measure and just maybe we can slow the bleeding.
While I'm not for any additional taxes on anyone, the above statement is sane and fair.
The poor vs rich stuff that's been going around this country is an absolutely travesty. We are all in this (s@&$ storm) together at this point, and if we are going to get out if it, it's going to have to be so together, any thing less isn't going to help.
IMO
Belmont31R
11-11-12, 20:57
The entitlement class is where the Libs get all their votes and the only contribution they could make is mass suicide.
The age group that voted for Mitt in the biggest percentage were elderly, age 65 and up, who are taking the biggest chunk of the pie via SS and Medicare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
Business_Casual
11-11-12, 21:28
I think capital gains taxes are evil. You have paid the top marginal rate on your income, then when you invest it, post tax, you pay again on the money you earn. Evil.
Evil.
Business_Casual
11-11-12, 21:34
Because not "ALL" of us live in Blue states, and NOT "ALL" of us voted for it. :blink::blink:
As a business owner that employs people that would not be affected by the rape that you speak of, I can assure you, with certainty, that raising taxes on those that earn $250k+ would have the exact opposite effect than what is needed in this country (MORE JOBS). Couple that with Obamacare = double digit unemployment = less revenue for gov = less money for entitlements + more people on entitlements = more taking from job producers= even less jobs = even les revenue = and eventual, and inevitable collapse..
Less talk of taking from others and more talk and action of helping job creators creat more jobs is the answer.
If what we need is jobs (and it is) then the answer is not punishing job creators.
How do you know what we need is more jobs? Maybe we need less spending and a net outflow of population.
(I'm just saying that your argument needs some more work, bro.)
Because until we can create compelling arguments around these topics, we aren't going to win anymore national elections...
bc
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order.
Bitter medicine? You bet. So shut up and swallow.
Exactly. Go back to the Clinton era spending levels (adjusted to inflation) and then we can go back to Clinton era tax rates. This is one of those rare times that we agree.
How do you know what we need is more jobs? Maybe we need less spending and a net outflow of population.
bc
Because full employment is 4%. You will close the deficit much faster if you employ people rather than shrink the potential tax base with self-deportation. Besides, where are people going to go? We are still the nicest house in a shitty neighborhood.
When America is fully employed, we bring in plenty of revenue. For example, our greatest year of revenue was in 2007 under the Bush Tax Cuts. Granted, some of that was revenue from inflated capital gains caused by artificially low interest rates. However, the point is that our situation is correctable with a gradual reduction in spending along with smart deregulation of the big job killers such as DF and Obamacare. You can raise taxes and it will not crash the economy or meaningfully help or deficit/debt.
Business_Casual
11-11-12, 22:00
Meh, not buying it. The majority of the population doesn't pay income tax. You can create all the non-tax paying jobs you want and it won't move the needle on the deficit.
Canada has gun control, socialized medicine and high marginal rates. They have higher employment rates than we do.
Until we broaden the tax base it won't work - so why not raise the rates on all income levels first?
bc
....so why not raise the rates on all income levels first?
Yes, everyone should have skin in the game. All income should be taxed and not loopholed back as a refund.
If we need money, we need money. Taxes up some, a lot of spending cuts. Period.
The cuts have to be bigger, obviously, as you can not mathematically tax your way in to a surplus.
montanadave
11-11-12, 22:39
So if a bunch of guys here that usually can't agree on the time of ****in' day can find some common ground on how to address these issues, why is it impossible for the 535 numb nuts sitting in Congress and the "pick your own personal adjective" in the White House hammer out a deal?
It ain't that hard!
The fact that we've had a decade of the Bush tax cuts, lax regulation of Wall Street, the lowest interest rates in forever which would seem to encourage business investment to achieve at least some reasonable rate of return, and additional payroll tax holidays leaves one to ask ... where's the beef?
Oh, right, I forgot. The argument is always the same. We just need to cut taxes more, abolish capital gains taxes, etc. Gimme, gimme, gimme and yet the payoff never comes.
The only "trickle down" is from the guy pissing on my back and telling me it's raining.
how can the gov taking money from someone be a tax CUT !!! you mean the gov decided it wanted to take more from people that work to give to lazy folks who do not like to work !
and get off the bush crap !!! obama has spent more than any president in history !!!! he promised to cut it in half instead he made it go way up !!!!
and gimme gimme as you say is not giving anything !!!
if I earn it I should keep it !! so the only gimme gimme gimme is the liberals and gov
and funny when you check the liberals never give much of their own money ?
will be fun to see where obama spends us into of course it will be bushes fault in 4 more years !!!!
facts are a funny thing that way
Business_Casual
11-12-12, 06:10
So if a bunch of guys here that usually can't agree on the time of ****in' day can find some common ground on how to address these issues, why is it impossible for the 535 numb nuts sitting in Congress and the "pick your own personal adjective" in the White House hammer out a deal?
It ain't that hard!
Well there are only two options, right? One, Boehner and Obama are bad leaders, or two, they are in on the joke...
Of course, they did play golf together...
bc
Higher taxes?
Every time we give the govt more money they find new ways to spend it.
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order.
Bitter medicine? You bet. So shut up and swallow.
The problem is that Obama and company are out there touting that "the wealthiest Americans just need to pay a little bit more" and all of our problems magically go away; when the reality is that you could double the absolute dollar value of income taxes (earned and unearned) paid by those making over $250k and not even come close to touching a $T+ deficit.
I hate the whole loathing of the rich that is soo popular. Jealousy is ugly, But has anyone ever seen any reputable evidence(as in,not a crazy breibart article) that shows that trickle down economics is a job creator, and exactly how it does this?
Plenty. My stepdad is starting his own concrete business from what he learned as a union laborer for 30 years. A kid I worked at a detail shop with while in college now owns his own detail shop. A girl I grew up with got a useless degree and bounced around awhile, found something she loved and now is a personal trainer in her own gym. Another has a flooring company. Another with a garage door business. I know quite a few people that are under 30 with their own business that worked their asses off and now are a small business owner. It's those evil rich people that employ them for their services , not the poor that can't afford it. The more business they get, the more people they can employ.
How do you know what we need is more jobs? Maybe we need less spending and a net outflow of population.
(I'm just saying that your argument needs some more work, bro.)
Because until we can create compelling arguments around these topics, we aren't going to win anymore national elections...
bc
The argument for more jobs needs work?? Really?
America is at its strongest, financially, militarily, globally, etc when the work force is thriving.. As a previous poster said, 4%, maybe even a touch higher like 4.2% is the happy medium. The lower this rate goes, say closer to 3.5%, the better the market is for employee's, wages are forced up as employers compete for workers to fill positions, the requirements to fill these positions tend to ease as well due to this competition.
When the rate goes higher to say 5% the employers have the advantage in the market, wages go down and requirements tighten, as its now the employees that are competing for jobs.
The gov brings in the most revenue when ALL of the citizens are working. The way out of deficits is through job creation, not through stifling job creations by punishing those that create jobs.
Business_Casual
11-12-12, 07:37
It is difficult to measure the cost of the EITC to the U.S. federal government. At the most basic level, federal revenues are decreased by the lower, and often negative, tax burden on the working poor for which the EITC is responsible. In this basic sense, the cost of the EITC to the Federal Government was more than $36 billion in 2004.
I think there is a basic disconnect here.
I am talking about the jobs created by small businesses that HIRE people to do concrete work or put flowers in boxes or clean offices. Sure, the owner might be making $250K, but the WORKERS are making much less. And are actually net drains on the tax base under our current system.
You, I think, are thinking every small business job created is created by the owner(s). Which isn't the case.
bc
I hate the whole loathing of the rich that is soo popular. Jealousy is ugly, But has anyone ever seen any reputable evidence(as in,not a crazy breibart article) that shows that trickle down economics is a job creator, and exactly how it does this?
True and is what adds fuel to the fire for people that are NOT educated.
The left is fantastic at painting the picture that Republicans are ALL Rich and are riding the backs of the poor and middle class. This is of course false.
One of the biggest lies told to the voter is that Romney didn't pay any taxes (or just 15%). I am not sure why people have never heard of capital gains taxes before, but it appears to be a black hole in Americans knowledge. Romney PAID 39% (or whatever was the HIGHEST tax rate at the time/per that year) and then invested it into mutual funds, etc. When took a dividend, he had to pay an additional 15% on those profits. If I hear one more person tell me that Romney only paid 15% in taxes, I am killing a kitten.
Next rant. Why can't low income to middle class folks realize that they might not be in that income level the rest of their lives??? As you gain experience or education, you typically go up in salary. This means that at some point in your life, YOU WILL be in that high tax rate. When I was a lowly E-2 in the NAV, I never though; "Hmmm, I bet I am going to be making $12k a year for the rest of life." :rolleyes:
The US has one of the HIGHEST business tax rates in the world. Most of Europe and CA have figured out that if they lower this rate (15% is now the norm) that companies will hire more people and be able to compete better in the global economy. As an LLC, I pay about 50% in Federal and State taxes and yes, I am one of the "evil" rich people that makes over $250k. The problem (again that most Americans don't seem to realize) is that I don't actually put $250K in my pocket every year. I take a fraction of this income for personal use and roll the profits back into my company so that I can stock more inventory. So those Americans that need to "Pay their fair share" are actually business owners that have LLC's and their COMPANIES profits appear as their personal incomes (even though they don't actually take a $250K salary). This is the problem.
If the US Govt were to lower my business taxes to 15%, I would have at least 1-2 NEW employees. They would make somewhere between $30k-$50k a year. This is how I see trickledown economics.
C4
I think capital gains taxes are evil. You have paid the top marginal rate on your income, then when you invest it, post tax, you pay again on the money you earn. Evil.
Evil.
Bingo!
C4
Crow Hunter
11-12-12, 08:31
Yes, everyone should have skin in the game.
This IMHO, is the key to everything.
As long as an anonymous "someone else" is paying for your dinner, you will order the biggest steak on the menu, at the nicest restaurant in town, whether you can eat it or not.
When it is coming out of your own pocket, you might be just as happy to eat a cheeseburger at McDonalds.
I think EVERYONE needs to feel what it is like to see a % of the money that they could use for themselves, go to be used by the government.
People would be much more critical of what it is spent on and far less likely be behind increases in entitlements.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 08:35
The fact that we've had a decade of the Bush tax cuts, lax regulation of Wall Street, the lowest interest rates in forever which would seem to encourage business investment to achieve at least some reasonable rate of return, and additional payroll tax holidays leaves one to ask ... where's the beef?
Oh, right, I forgot. The argument is always the same. We just need to cut taxes more, abolish capital gains taxes, etc. Gimme, gimme, gimme and yet the payoff never comes.
The only "trickle down" is from the guy pissing on my back and telling me it's raining.
I think the conservatives need to focus on what we get for the taxes we pay. If Obama weren't black we could portray the govt as a drug addict that will say anything to get more 'drugs' (money). Try to do that now and the howls of racism , never mind Barry's drug using and dealing history, would drown out the message.
montanadave
11-12-12, 08:43
One of the biggest lies told to the voter is that Romney didn't pay any taxes (or just 15%). I am not sure why people have never heard of capital gains taxes before, but it appears to be a black hole in Americans knowledge. Romney PAID 39% (or whatever was the HIGHEST tax rate at the time/per that year) and then invested it into mutual funds, etc. When took a dividend, he had to pay an additional 15% on those profits. If I hear one more person tell me that Romney only paid 15% in taxes, I am killing a kitten.
Next rant. Why can't low income to middle class folks realize that they might not be in that income level the rest of their lives??? As you gain experience or education, you typically go up in salary. This means that at some point in your life, YOU WILL be in that high tax rate. When I was a lowly E-2 in the NAV, I never though; "Hmmm, I bet I am going to be making $12k a year for the rest of life." :rolleyes:
C4
With regards to Romney's effective tax rates, we don't know what he paid (or didn't). You assert Romney "paid" the highest marginal tax rate and subsequently invested that money, which is now subject to capital gains. There is no evidence to support that. The compensation packages provided to many in the venture capital/hedge fund world are structured in such a way as to avoid marginal tax rates and are subject solely to capital gains taxes. You don't know what he paid and neither do I. But the smart money says he NEVER paid the highest marginal tax rates on his compensation from Bain Capital.
Run, kitty, run!
As for your second argument, while it is true that folks can move out of one income bracket into another, the simple fact is that income mobility is the United States has never been more stagnant. The economic reality is that those at the very highest income levels are seeing their share of the pie increase exponentially while lower and middle class incomes have remained stagnant for decades.
Business_Casual
11-12-12, 08:53
With regards to Romney's effective tax rates, we don't know what he paid (or didn't). You assert Romney "paid" the highest marginal tax rate and subsequently invested that money, which is now subject to capital gains. There is no evidence to support that. The compensation packages provided to many in the venture capital/hedge fund world are structured in such a way as to avoid marginal tax rates and are subject solely to capital gains taxes. You don't know what he paid and neither do I. But the smart money says he NEVER paid the highest marginal tax rates on his compensation from Bain Capital.
Run, kitty, run!
As for your second argument, while it is true that folks can move out of one income bracket into another, the simple fact is that income mobility is the United States has never been more stagnant. The economic reality is that those at the very highest income levels are seeing their share of the pie increase exponentially while lower and middle class incomes have remained stagnant for decades.
Dude, you are so clueless it is painful. If he took ordinary income from Bain Capital structured as empty soda cans, he'd still have to pay income tax on it.
Do you think the IRS is that stupid? I have dealt with distributions before bro, and believe me, they are taxed as income.
Tell us about these "structures" that aren't income so the rest of the country can avoid - er sorry Mr. IRS, I didn't mean "avoid" as that is a felony - not pay income taxes. Come on, we're waiting. :confused:
FACT - he paid the top marginal rate on his income, there is no way to escape it.
FACT - he paid again on the Capital Gains when he realized them. There is no way to escape it.
bc
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 09:04
With regards to Romney's effective tax rates, we don't know what he paid (or didn't). You assert Romney "paid" the highest marginal tax rate and subsequently invested that money, which is now subject to capital gains. There is no evidence to support that. The compensation packages provided to many in the venture capital/hedge fund world are structured in such a way as to avoid marginal tax rates and are subject solely to capital gains taxes. You don't know what he paid and neither do I. But the smart money says he NEVER paid the highest marginal tax rates on his compensation from Bain Capital.
Run, kitty, run!
As for your second argument, while it is true that folks can move out of one income bracket into another, the simple fact is that income mobility is the United States has never been more stagnant. The economic reality is that those at the very highest income levels are seeing their share of the pie increase exponentially while lower and middle class incomes have remained stagnant for decades.
Dude, you are so clueless it is painful. If he took ordinary income from Bain Capital structured as empty soda cans, he'd still have to pay income tax on it.
Do you think the IRS is that stupid? I have dealt with distributions before bro, and believe me, they are taxed as income.
Tell us about these "structures" that aren't income so the rest of the country can avoid - er sorry Mr. IRS, I didn't mean "avoid" as that is a felony - not pay income taxes. Come on, we're waiting. :confused:
FACT - he paid the top marginal rate on his income, there is no way to escape it.
FACT - he paid again on the Capital Gains when he realized them. There is no way to escape it.
bc
He seems to have been paying about $3-5million a year in taxes on capital gains. That means his capital gains were about $25 million- and how much capital are we talking about to make these gains? $175-300 million? I've seen estimates at $250million for his wealth. The top bracket is at about $0.4million ($379,000). Spread the money he made to get to a $250million nest egg over a couple of life times and he still would have paid the top tax rate.
With regards to Romney's effective tax rates, we don't know what he paid (or didn't). You assert Romney "paid" the highest marginal tax rate and subsequently invested that money, which is now subject to capital gains. There is no evidence to support that. The compensation packages provided to many in the venture capital/hedge fund world are structured in such a way as to avoid marginal tax rates and are subject solely to capital gains taxes. You don't know what he paid and neither do I. But the smart money says he NEVER paid the highest marginal tax rates on his compensation from Bain Capital.
Run, kitty, run!
Sorry, but no. He paid taxes on his PERSONAL income. Then invested that into mutual funds (or whatever) and this is where the 15% argument (That Dems used against him) comes from.
As for your second argument, while it is true that folks can move out of one income bracket into another, the simple fact is that income mobility is the United States has never been more stagnant. The economic reality is that those at the very highest income levels are seeing their share of the pie increase exponentially while lower and middle class incomes have remained stagnant for decades.
This might be true (within the last 4 years), but the ENTIRE time in the US history, this wasn't the case and I am prime example of it.
C4
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 09:13
As for your second argument, while it is true that folks can move out of one income bracket into another, the simple fact is that income mobility is the United States has never been more stagnant. The economic reality is that those at the very highest income levels are seeing their share of the pie increase exponentially while lower and middle class incomes have remained stagnant for decades.
And that coorelates to the increase in the govt regulations and bureaucracy. It used to be that a good idea and a business plan were what you needed for a business, now it is all kinds of paper work, permits and HR crap that don't add anything to the economy- except jobs to help people fill out the paper work.
I'd much rather have a smaller piece of the American apple pie than the mud pie in India or the cat pie in China.... or the stale croisant from France...
montanadave
11-12-12, 09:18
Dude, you are so clueless it is painful. If he took ordinary income from Bain Capital structured as empty soda cans, he'd still have to pay income tax on it.
Do you think the IRS is that stupid? I have dealt with distributions before bro, and believe me, they are taxed as income.
Tell us about these "structures" that aren't income so the rest of the country can avoid - er sorry Mr. IRS, I didn't mean "avoid" as that is a felony - not pay income taxes. Come on, we're waiting. :confused:
FACT - he paid the top marginal rate on his income, there is no way to escape it.
FACT - he paid again on the Capital Gains when he realized them. There is no way to escape it.
bc
And if his compensation was structured as "carried interest"?
The simple fact is that neither you nor I know what he paid and the fact that he adamantly refused to release his tax records despite appeals from both his own party and the Democrats speaks volumes.
Romney made the cold calculus that releasing the returns would do his campaign far more damage than stonewalling. And I CAN do that math.
It's pointless to argue hypotheticals because the election is over and none of us will ever see his returns now.
Business_Casual
11-12-12, 09:44
And if his compensation was structured as "carried interest"?
The simple fact is that neither you nor I know what he paid and the fact that he adamantly refused to release his tax records despite appeals from both his own party and the Democrats speaks volumes.
Romney made the cold calculus that releasing the returns would do his campaign far more damage than stonewalling. And I CAN do that math.
It's pointless to argue hypotheticals because the election is over and none of us will ever see his returns now.
Agree - both on carried interest (if so means he wasn't paid at all until later and then at long-term cap rates) and hypotheticals.
bc
montanadave
11-12-12, 10:06
It should also be noted that Governor Romney was asked repeatedly during the course of his presidential campaign if the "carried interest" loophole was one of those which he intended to close as part of his tax reform/balanced budget plan.
He never answered the question.
theblackknight
11-12-12, 10:30
Plenty. My stepdad is starting his own concrete business from what he learned as a union laborer for 30 years. A kid I worked at a detail shop with while in college now owns his own detail shop. A girl I grew up with got a useless degree and bounced around awhile, found something she loved and now is a personal trainer in her own gym. Another has a flooring company. Another with a garage door business. I know quite a few people that are under 30 with their own business that worked their asses off and now are a small business owner. It's those evil rich people that employ them for their services , not the poor that can't afford it. The more business they get, the more people they can employ.
Sorry but thats not evidence.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 10:30
It should also be noted that Governor Romney was asked repeatedly during the course of his presidential campaign if the "carried interest" loophole was one of those which he intended to close as part of his tax reform/balanced budget plan.
He never answered the question.
If you are going to keep that financial data private, you don't answer any questions. If he said yes, or even no, do you think the questions would have ended there.
Grow up.
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order.
It does not mean higher taxes. Higher taxes does not mean higher revenue.
---
And if his compensation was structured as "carried interest"?
The simple fact is that neither you nor I know what he paid and the fact that he adamantly refused to release his tax records despite appeals from both his own party and the Democrats speaks volumes.
Romney made the cold calculus that releasing the returns would do his campaign far more damage than stonewalling. And I CAN do that math.
It's pointless to argue hypotheticals because the election is over and none of us will ever see his returns now.
You don't think the Obama administration had their "people" at the IRS looking through his tax records to see if any mistakes were made???? If so, I have some beach front property to sell you.
C4
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 11:35
Plenty. My stepdad is starting his own concrete business from what he learned as a union laborer for 30 years. A kid I worked at a detail shop with while in college now owns his own detail shop. A girl I grew up with got a useless degree and bounced around awhile, found something she loved and now is a personal trainer in her own gym. Another has a flooring company. Another with a garage door business. I know quite a few people that are under 30 with their own business that worked their asses off and now are a small business owner. It's those evil rich people that employ them for their services , not the poor that can't afford it. The more business they get, the more people they can employ.
Sorry but thats not evidence.
Sure as shit beats trickle up poverty....
But back on taxes. Even as a conservative, I'f you are going to raise revenue by simplifing the tax code, go after the exemption for state and local taxes. Why give people credit for local taxes? This is just subsidising the higher tax states.
"The state and local tax deduction cost an estimated $50.7 billion in tax expenditures in fiscal 2007, compared with $73.7 billion for the home mortgage interest deduction and $41.9 billion for the individual charitable contributions deduction"
from:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/fiscal/deduction.cfm
You live somewhere that likes to tax people, you should pay full frieght. Why are people that vote for their high taxes, like in NYC, able to shift some of their tax burden on to the rest of us? Live somewhere that minimizes taxes and you pay more than your fair share.
I really think this idea is a winner.
And if his compensation was structured as "carried interest"?
So? If you understand what carried interest is, it make sense on how it is taxed.
I can't believe we are arguing that some people should be taxed more and at higher rates because they are successful investors.
And since these are "profits" being distributed, I would assume that the entity already paid taxes on them once, so we have in effect "double taxation."
--
I can't believe we are arguing that some people should be taxed more and at higher rates because they are successful investors.
--
This is now a COMMON THEME in this country (even by self-proclaimed conservatives). Its TRUE NAME is jealousy.
When I see a super wealthy person, I congratulate them on their success and will continue to push myself and my business.
C4
This is now a COMMON THEME in this country (even by self-proclaimed conservatives). Its TRUE NAME is jealousy.
When I see a super wealthy person, I congratulate them on their success and will continue to push myself and my business.
I think the word we want is actually "Envy". Thanks for naming it though. Jealousy works just fine. The word was on the tip of my tongue (jealousy and envy both) but not quite there when I posted earlier.
Envy: a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
I struggle. I am not rich by any means. In fact, probably have a negative net worth at the moment. I am working to fix that and get back on track. However, I have never once had the idea that somehow some guy I see who has done better than me is responsible for my problems. I have never once figured it was better to take that guys money from him through taxes or any other means. I look to that guy as an inspiration on what is possible in this country (or was possible). What I do resent is the amount of taxes taken from me through threat of force. And that resentment is doubled when I see blow-hards like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other fat cat Democrats who have nevr done an honest day's work in their lives, carry on about how the "rich" need to pay more and that we only make it with government help.
--
brickboy240
11-12-12, 13:04
I know it SOUNDS like a lot of money...but in many places, those that make 250 grand a year are NOT rich.
Well...not the cigar chomping top hat wearing Monopoly Game guy that some might think these earners are.
Around here, most convenience stores easily gross 250k a year. I know an electrical contractor that earns 250 plus a year and he lives in a very modest house, drives a 10 year old pickup and does not have a Rolex. He puts his money back into his business.
I also know a plumber that employs 2 other people and he too earns around 250. He is also not what you'd call wealthy....with a wife that also works and a house that is maybe 1600 sq ft.
I am sure that in ND or UT...yeah...250k a year makes you like Trump but in this city...nope... not even close.
America will not tax itself back into the black...sorry...it never works that way.
-brickboy240
PrivateCitizen
11-12-12, 13:08
Sadly, any discussion of anything surrounding taxes is irrelevant.
The Bush tax cuts AND the war on terror 9-11/Iraq/Iran could have never happened and we'd still be facing a pile of debt (especially when you consider our liabilities … )
We have a spending problem … and until that becomes the focus anything involving who is paying what percentage is a fools game.
So if a bunch of guys here that usually can't agree on the time of ****in' day can find some common ground on how to address these issues, why is it impossible for the 535 numb nuts sitting in Congress and the "pick your own personal adjective" in the White House hammer out a deal?
It ain't that hard!
Quite frankly- because they don't want to- and it goes directly against their planning. What is happening is not just the luck of the draw, it isn't an accident we are where we are. It has all been finessed deliberately over a long span of time.
It is the only reasonable explanation for the actions/outcome we are seeing...
Right Vs. Left/ Conservatism Vs/ Liberalism is just the smoke and mirrors of it all. The illusion that keeps us all fighting one another instead of the real problems in our country.
This country is being literally sold off, our sovereignty and all. The American way of life (American Exceptionalism, nuclear family, liberty, etc...) is being replaced with the old European trash we got away from so long ago.
It really isn't all that hard when you think about it: -We're in massive debt; the only way to counteract that is to:
1) Stop all non-essential spending; kill it in its tracks (This is our #1 priority, KILL SPENDING, KILL-KILL-KILL IT!), and start a flat across the board tax(A flat tax in the range of 10%-15%; a flat tax would eliminate 75%+ of the IRS and the tax $$$ that go to the IRS). Everyone pays the same flat rate, no one is exempt.
2) Get back to a strong manufacturing base and actually sell stuff to other countries and our own.
3) Make it lucrative to do business in the USA again (We tax the shit out of busniesses and regulate them into third world markets; it is time to get them back along with the jobs they create) and demand greater production from all industries; specifically our unoin destroyed industries and tell the unions to suck-it. Period.
I hate taxes, I believe we should only allow taxes that are constitutionally allowed (And we need to scrap the broad sword/interpretation of the commerce clause) but we do need to feel the pain we've been creating with our spending habits and stop forcing it onto future generations; insurmountable debt is defacto slavery; and we're a bunch of dicks for pushing it onto our children.
We also need to quit demonizing success. It used to be you saw a successful man and asked him how he became successful, would listen up well and try to be successful yourself. Bring yourself up to that level...
Now people just hate you if you have anything above their station/status; and everyone wants to bring others down to their level. Instead of raising themselves/others up, they want to bring everyone down. It's pathetic and I see it every day in some shape or form.
The psychology of our society has changed for the worse. A bunch of instant gratification seeking, half-assing "I deserve everything because I am a little special snowflake who got a blue ribbon and a pat on the back for every mediocre little event in every aspect of life" ,morons is what most people are these days.
We need a fresh injection of morals & ethics (Not necessarily religion) accountability and responsibility again; they are all but gone. The bar has been lowered in society and individuals are following along.
Sorry but thats not evidence.
An article in a newspaper isnt needed. In other words you're saying you don't have the common sense to figure out that the more money people get to keep, the more they will have to spend?
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-12-12, 13:47
Worth the read for some here:
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/sen-corker-optimistic-there-is-a-deal-to-get-beyond-fiscal-cliff-which-is-really-the-fiscal-foothills/
Good luck
So if a bunch of guys here that usually can't agree on the time of ****in' day can find some common ground on how to address these issues, why is it impossible for the 535 numb nuts sitting in Congress and the "pick your own personal adjective" in the White House hammer out a deal?
It ain't that hard!
Because generally it is in all of our best interests to solve the problem. Liberal or conservative we the people are the ones paying the bills and having to deal with the negative ramifications of these issues. Conversely, the 535 retards in DC depend I these issues being around so they can maintain their never ending gravy train job of fixing them.
Sadly no amount of tax hike can solve the budget issue. Sorry, but we are past that point. Decades of are loess spending and Enronomics run amok have put here. Believe it or not, but the government (fed, state, and local) is the biggest employer in the country. These employees don't make anything and receive their compensation from the taxes taken out of the rest of our incomes. (As a giant aside we have stringent laws against the private sector double dipping their "income" by reporting inter company transfers as sales income; yet the government does so by reporting the taxes paid in by federal employees as income) Add the number of people on some form of benefit and the whole country is a giant economic pyramid scheme that has turned upside down. IMO you could take every penny made by everyone in the country and still not make a dent unless you stop spending like a drunken sailor on a Viagra high in a whorehouse.
When I see a super wealthy person, I congratulate them on their success and will continue to push myself and my business.
C4
This is what makes America great. However there is a PR war on us folks trying to make it.
Since when is 250k a lot of money for a family income?
I think capital gains taxes are evil. You have paid the top marginal rate on your income, then when you invest it, post tax, you pay again on the money you earn. Evil.
Evil.
The biggest problem with escaping the nanny state for the average American, right ****ing here. If the average asshole could go out, make good investments, sell said investments, and walk off with every ****ing dime of the profit and save it tax-free, the average asshole could afford retirement without sucking the government teat (and, by nature, the teat of everything productive in the US economy).
hahahahahaha.. that's all I better say, but I'll say it again.. hahahahaha.. Cheers.. Ron
This is what makes America great. However there is a PR war on us folks trying to make it.
Since when is 250k a lot of money for a family income?
Since today.. $250K is about three times the family income of professionals in my area.. More like five times the average.. Ron
Since today.. $250K is about three times the family income of professionals in my area.. More like five times the average.. Ron
I recognize that, but its hardly "rich", and that is all that I am getting at.
Cagemonkey
11-12-12, 19:25
The age group that voted for Mitt in the biggest percentage were elderly, age 65 and up, who are taking the biggest chunk of the pie via SS and Medicare.My bad. I was thinking of the Welfare, EBT types.
I recognize that, but its hardly "rich", and that is all that I am getting at.
I understand, but it's a relative thing. I can guarantee you that to a family making $50K, $250K is beyond rich. In fact $250K is rich to me. I can also say that in all honesty I would be happy to pay a higher percentage if my family income was $250.. But I guess everyone doesn't see it that way.. Ron
I understand, but it's a relative thing. I can guarantee you that to a family making $50K, $250K is beyond rich. In fact $250K is rich to me. I can also say that in all honesty I would be happy to pay a higher percentage if my family income was $250.. But I guess everyone doesn't see it that way.. Ron
O I agree with you, but in order for us to dream big we have to take steps along the middle. Those guys are already paying more. Now they may be paying 25 to 35% more....
2011 Tax Brackets
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350
Then in 2013, folks in the higher 2 brackets can expect to see their incomes rise an additional 15%.
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/contributors.asp?id=2319
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-12, 20:28
Since today.. $250K is about three times the family income of professionals in my area.. More like five times the average.. Ron
Pro what?
$250k is two govt employees or two white collar GM workers or a medical doctor.
If anything in want to go back to a head tax or make every dollar of tax paid worth one vote. This representation without taxation is killing us.
Pro what?
$250k is two govt employees or two white collar GM workers or a medical doctor.
If anything in want to go back to a head tax or make every dollar of tax paid worth one vote. This representation without taxation is killing us.
Sign me up.
Pro what?
$250k is two govt employees or two white collar GM workers or a medical doctor.
If anything in want to go back to a head tax or make every dollar of tax paid worth one vote. This representation without taxation is killing us.
$250k isn't a lot. If my wife and I were still DoD contractors, we would be making $250k.
What most people (that don't make this kind of money) don't realize is that these people live in expensive areas (so really isn't that much money) OR own a business and their companies gross profit is viewed as their income.
C4
Failure2Stop
11-12-12, 21:06
If anything in want to go back to a head tax or make every dollar of tax paid worth one vote. This representation without taxation is killing us.
I've been supportive of this idea for a while.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
We play right into "their" hands when we attempt to label ourselves or others as "rich" or "Wealthy" or "High Earners", etc.
We play right into "their" hands when we try to draw some ridiculous line on incomes that says, at THIS point you are making too much money for your ("our") own good, and more needs to be taken from you.
$250k is 5 times $50k, $50k is 5 times $10k, $10k is DOUBLE $5k, $1M is 4 times $250k, $10M is 50 times $200k… So freaking what???!!! Those making $10M Don't deserve it?? $50k??? $5k??
It's about (or supposed to be) what's fair….
So what is fair? All income taxed at the same exact rate.. say 15%, I'd even be ok, with Cap Gains being taxed at the same rate.. just any money earned no matter how, 15%.
A person making $10M cuts a check for $1.5M
A person making $10k cuts a cheek for $1500.
IRS instantly shrinks to what, for the sake of continuity… 15% of it's existing size… Filing taxes becomes sooooooo much easier… and .. fair to every single individual.
Maybe, and I'm just thinking onto my keyboard, just one deduction… Charitable donations… that's it.
No more of this garbage pitting income levels against income levels.
The "1%'er" crap just stinks of Nazi German pre holocaust… economy in shambles, things spiraling down hill, the people desperate for someone to blame… "It's the Jews!! (It's the 1%'ers!!), they are taking our money, they don't deserve it, they stole from us!!!…. Label them! ...Separate them!! … Punish them!!"
….
…
"Kill them!!!"
I'm not saying that's how this will play out here… but… it sure is a slippery slope.
Belmont31R
11-12-12, 21:49
I'm amazed at people who think 250k a year isn't doing well. Of course certain areas are more expensive than another...but even in NYC the average income is nowhere near that. You would be well above average in in the vast majority of localities even notoriously expensive locations.
Rich, they are not, but wealthy, yes, unless they blow it all on a mcmansion and toys. Rich to me, is when you almost never have to ask how much something is. Like walking by a showroom with a Bugatti Veyron in it, and realizing you have a watch that cost as much or more. A person earning 250k a year can certainly accumulate wealth even in expensive areas.
Business_Casual
11-13-12, 05:51
I'm amazed at people who think 250k a year isn't doing well. Of course certain areas are more expensive than another...but even in NYC the average income is nowhere near that. You would be well above average in in the vast majority of localities even notoriously expensive locations.
Rich, they are not, but wealthy, yes, unless they blow it all on a mcmansion and toys. Rich to me, is when you almost never have to ask how much something is. Like walking by a showroom with a Bugatti Veyron in it, and realizing you have a watch that cost as much or more. A person earning 250k a year can certainly accumulate wealth even in expensive areas.
When a house in a bad neighborhood is $500K and getting into a good area starts at $700K, then all of a sudden $250K isn't making that much money.
Which is part of the reason I moved to Atlanta, where $ goes much further...
bc
I see the need for some clarity in this discussion. Some have referred to the $250 thousand applying to "gross income". I have heard the same thing by media reporters.
A business or individual is not taxed on their gross income. I'll use myself as an example. I am a sole proprietor and my business files a Schedule C as part of my personal tax return.
The first section is INCOME, which starts with gross receipts or income, meaning all income from all sources, but then various adjustments are subtracted out and then cost of goods sold is also subtracted out. This results in Gross Income, which can be substantially lower than my gross receipts depending on my adjustments and COGS.
From Gross Income, my allowed operating expenses further reduce (quite substantially) this Gross Income number to a Net Profit or Loss number. This business profit or loss is then reported on my 1040 as just one component of my personal total income, which is then even further reduced by allowed adjustments resulting in my personal Adjusted Gross Income. This AGI is still even further reduced by my allowed personal deductions and credits.
Just because my business might have gross income (revenue) of $1 million (it doesn't, but I can fantasize) doesn't mean I made a million $. I might have COGS of $500 thousand, and operating expenses of $400 thousand, resulting in Schedule C business net profit of only $100 thousand. In this example, I sold a million $ worth of stuff, but only made $100 thousand doing so. It is also possible to break even or even have a business loss, depending on the COGS and operating expenses.
The number people should be focusing on is taxable net income after all the allowable adjustments, expenses and deductions are taken out - in other words, the amount of net income one actually has to pay taxes on.
S Corps work similarly with respect to a personal tax return for the owner(s) but there are more complications and nuances with S Corps that aren't worth getting into here. Just keeping it simple.
C Corps are taxed at the corporate level. Salaries paid to C corp owners are deductible expenses to the C Corp, therby reducing Corp taxes, but these salaries are W-2 wages to the C corp owner(s) on their personal Form 1040's.
So the short of it is that if my small business has gross income (revenue) of $1 million it doesn't make me a millionaire. Nobody should be looking at it that way and the IRS sure doesn't. Everything about the various tax brackets and percent of taxes paid should apply to net taxable income, which is way down on Line 43, on the back of your personal Form 1040.
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 08:36
When a house in a bad neighborhood is $500K and getting into a good area starts at $700K, then all of a sudden $250K isn't making that much money.
Which is part of the reason I moved to Atlanta, where $ goes much further...
bc
Where is that at? We have some 500k houses around here, and some over a million less than a mile from me...but I don't really think the situation you described is common. I'm sure there's a few select areas or prime real estate where that may apply. I just think for the vast majority of 250k/yr earners that is not the case.
Business_Casual
11-13-12, 09:11
Old Town, Beverly Hills, Del Ray, Belle Haven in Alexandria
North, Ballston, Clarendon in Arlington
Fairfax Station, Old Town in Fairfax
On and on...
Crow Hunter
11-13-12, 09:40
I see the need for some clarity in this discussion. Some have referred to the $250 thousand applying to "gross income". I have heard the same thing by media reporters.
A business or individual is not taxed on their gross income. I'll use myself as an example. I am a sole proprietor and my business files a Schedule C as part of my personal tax return.
The first section is INCOME, which starts with gross receipts or income, meaning all income from all sources, but then various adjustments are subtracted out and then cost of goods sold is also subtracted out. This results in Gross Income, which can be substantially lower than my gross receipts depending on my adjustments and COGS.
From Gross Income, my allowed operating expenses further reduce (quite substantially) this Gross Income number to a Net Profit or Loss number. This business profit or loss is then reported on my 1040 as just one component of my personal total income, which is then even further reduced by allowed adjustments resulting in my personal Adjusted Gross Income. This AGI is still even further reduced by my allowed personal deductions and credits.
Just because my business might have gross income (revenue) of $1 million (it doesn't, but I can fantasize) doesn't mean I made a million $. I might have COGS of $500 thousand, and operating expenses of $400 thousand, resulting in Schedule C business net profit of only $100 thousand. In this example, I sold a million $ worth of stuff, but only made $100 thousand doing so. It is also possible to break even or even have a business loss, depending on the COGS and operating expenses.
The number people should be focusing on is taxable net income after all the allowable adjustments, expenses and deductions are taken out - in other words, the amount of net income one actually has to pay taxes on.
S Corps work similarly with respect to a personal tax return for the owner(s) but there are more complications and nuances with S Corps that aren't worth getting into here. Just keeping it simple.
C Corps are taxed at the corporate level. Salaries paid to C corp owners are deductible expenses to the C Corp, therby reducing Corp taxes, but these salaries are W-2 wages to the C corp owner(s) on their personal Form 1040's.
So the short of it is that if my small business has gross income (revenue) of $1 million it doesn't make me a millionaire. Nobody should be looking at it that way and the IRS sure doesn't. Everything about the various tax brackets and percent of taxes paid should apply to net taxable income, which is way down on Line 43, on the back of your personal Form 1040.
This is a good explanation of what really irritates me about the media and the morons who listen to them.
You hear all the time about how the "evil" (Insert name here) companies had sales of $XX billion. Neglecting to mention those ARE NOT PROFITS, just gross sales. No one ever reports what the margin is on anything.
I actually had a guy argue with me and say that it was better to get $1,000,000 in sales with a cost of $999,999 than it would be to sell something for $10 that cost $1..:rolleyes:
He also said that going from a 5 day work week to a 4 day work week would cost hourly workers 25% of their pay...:suicide:
Where is that at? We have some 500k houses around here, and some over a million less than a mile from me...but I don't really think the situation you described is common.
Pick any zip code in Northern Virginia. My 2200 sq ft townhouse is right around $430,000, based on recent comparative sales/listings.
"Common" may mean different things to different people, but I am from here, and this is very, very common.
In order to find what I would like in a house, I have to start in the $615,000 range. That is generally houses built around 1993-1998, and on the smaller side, like 2800 sq ft.
brickboy240
11-13-12, 10:39
Holy crap!
430 grand here will buy you 3500 sq ft on a golf course...easily. With a pool and a 3 car garage.
I honestly don't know how some of you swing housing in many of the bluer states.
Whew!
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 11:53
I was more shocked by 2800sqft being on the smaller side.
Yeah when you're living in mcmansions in an expensive area then 250k isn't 'a lot' of money.
I understand, but it's a relative thing. I can guarantee you that to a family making $50K, $250K is beyond rich. In fact $250K is rich to me. I can also say that in all honesty I would be happy to pay a higher percentage if my family income was $250.. But I guess everyone doesn't see it that way.. Ron
I'm not quite sure that I understand the point you are trying to make. Yes it's true that to a low income individual someone making $250k is unthinkably rich, so what??? If they desire that kind of income, why don't they just get off their asses and do something that makes that kind of cash?
Another thing that I don't get is this if I was making that kind of cash I'd be OK with paying extra talk. Well what the heck is stopping you from paying more?? Is the IRS gonna send out a hit team if you donate more money to them?? His about your local school district? Are they going to call the cops on you if you donate money or computers or books to them? His about a local homeless shelter or the VA or some other form of charity. I don't get it. Do you really need the government to take it from you and waste it somewhere outside your immediate are vs you putting it where you want.
Or are you just speaking for those who make over $250 and assuming that they have piles of cash laying around in mattresses doing nothing? You do get the idea that people generally increase their life style and spending as their incomes to up. It's not like people stuff mattresses with their annual raises and still live on Ramen and left over Pizza like we did in college. We should definitely be doing more of that as a society, but the economic impact on this consumer driven economy of people not spending is pretty bad. Companies lay off people when consumers aren't buying the next greatest iPhone or flat screen or new homes...
Sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't have a consumer driven economy where we depend on people consuming goods and services at a high clip AND ask them to also pay extra taxes. The people aren't the fed gov and generally can turn in a printer and have $100 bills pop out without it ending with jail time. Something is going to have to give.
Pick any zip code in Northern Virginia. My 2200 sq ft townhouse is right around $430,000, based on recent comparative sales/listings.
"Common" may mean different things to different people, but I am from here, and this is very, very common.
In order to find what I would like in a house, I have to start in the $615,000 range. That is generally houses built around 1993-1998, and on the smaller side, like 2800 sq ft.
and that is cheap compared to Maui :)
basic neighberhood middle class level
an entry 2200 sq ft house will be in the millions easy
prices have fallen radically so 1100 foot condo might run you about $800K now instead of over a million
700 sq ft can now be had again for about $250 or so
nice areas you can double that easily nicer triple that
downside is wages are really poor and their is no living just out of the area :) and unlike new york no rent price fixed stuff where some folks live cheap etc...
but thats a rare small % of population
I agree $250K is a very good income though
I was more shocked by 2800sqft being on the smaller side.
Yeah when you're living in mcmansions in an expensive area then 250k isn't 'a lot' of money.
LOL....2800 sq ft, with how houses are built around here, does not feel very big. Closets, bathrooms, and hallways mostly....
The house I live in now, and the one I grew up in where my parents still live, is 2150 sq ft.
I assure you 2800 sq ft would not meet the prototypical definition of a McMansion, not here anyway.
http://franklymls.com/default.aspx?m=R&l=350K&h=1500K&s=22315
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 13:04
LOL....2800 sq ft, with how houses are built around here, does not feel very big. Closets, bathrooms, and hallways mostly....
The house I live in now, and the one I grew up in where my parents still live, is 2150 sq ft.
I assure you 2800 sq ft would not meet the prototypical definition of a McMansion, not here anyway.
http://franklymls.com/default.aspx?m=R&l=350K&h=1500K&s=22315
8 out of the top 10 listings on there were over 4000. Thats HUGE. Were in a 1800sqft house which was 3bed2bath, office, and wasn't cramped at all with 4 people. You could fit 2 of those houses in one of these. We are cramped in a 1200sqft apartment. Kitchen sucks.
nineteenkilo
11-13-12, 13:28
As has been stated, it all depends on where you are. Currently, the family and I live in a 4 bedroom, 2 Bath home that is brick ranch style. Total is about 2250 square feet with all tile/hardwood on a slab. Water is well. Heat is gas with wood/central as backups. It needed minor updates (paint and a bit of carpeting) at purchase with two large outbuildings and a few acres of hardwoods. Yard is packed with fox, deer, turkeys, squirrels, coons, and rabbits. It is located in an extremely rural area - as it should be for my needs.
Total cost in Alabamastan: $64k
So, yeah, $250K is a freaking goldmine around here. Median income is $25,714.
8 out of the top 10 listings on there were over 4000. Thats HUGE. Were in a 1800sqft house which was 3bed2bath, office, and wasn't cramped at all with 4 people. You could fit 2 of those houses in one of these. We are cramped in a 1200sqft apartment. Kitchen sucks.
Right, and the part that is hard to understand, by not being a local here, is that if you get in to the $300k range, for a single family house w/ the typical 1/3rd acre lot, you are not in a nice place around here.
There are some pockets of quiet communities with reasonable prices, but those will go VERY fast, as every realtor knows where they are, and the will command a top level premium for what they are...
A person making $10M cuts a check for $1.5M
A person making $10k cuts a cheek for $1500.
If people had to actually cut a check for taxes every year there would be riots.
If people had to actually cut a check for taxes every year there would be riots.
+10000
Withholding totally corrupts the perception of the system.
--
Plus hiding some of the compensation your work earns as "employer contributions", so you can't see how much they really take.
Business_Casual
11-13-12, 17:51
a 1800sqft house which was 3bed2bath, office, and wasn't cramped at all with 4 people.
Sure, if you want to live next door to sicarios and day-shift strippers...
bc
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 18:15
Sure, if you want to live next door to sicarios and day-shift strippers...
bc
Huh? Our 4 neighbors were awesome. Miss hanging out with them a lot.
M/F
1. Resturant manager & IBM engineer 2 kids
2. Police officer and stay at home mom 2 kids
3. Business guy and elementary school teacher no kids
4. Web/App developer and stay at home mom 3 kids
All great people, all our kids played together, and when the holidays came around everyone was dropping gifts off at each others house. Houses ranged from 150k to 180k.
Sorry your guys areas have shit neighborhoods at 300k but there's some great people out here who don't live in 3000-4000+ sq ft houses that cost 700k.
8 out of the top 10 listings on there were over 4000. Thats HUGE. Were in a 1800sqft house which was 3bed2bath, office, and wasn't cramped at all with 4 people. You could fit 2 of those houses in one of these. We are cramped in a 1200sqft apartment. Kitchen sucks.
Even when I was poor, I had a 2200 Sq ft house so 2800 isn't that big IMHO.
When I think of BIG, I want to see homes starting at 3500 and honestly be heading into the 4,000 range.
C4
Homes have really inflated in size, without being McMansions, in the last 15 or so years. My folks home, ca 1994, is around 2300 finished plus an unfinished basement and is one of the smaller on their street. The home we moved from in Mass (built 1976) was about 1900 soft (according to Zillow) finished plus unfinished basement.
I look at some of the "middle class" neighborhoods that went up here in the SLC suburbs (South Jordan, parts of West Jordan, Riverton, Herriman) and a lot of those houses are 2500-3500. And they probably hit 450-600k before the crash. A friend of mine just moved into one a year ago that the guy had to sell because of a job change. He paid 270k and it was much bigger than the home he had, which was probably 2000-2200.
We rent a house and Zillow claims it is 1245 sqft. 3 bed, 2 bath. Plus an unfinished basement where I used to have my office and also my man cave and stockroom. It is kind of small since there is no real play area for the kids except the living room/kitchen area and we need an extra bedroom for our daughter since I am using one of the bedrooms for my office and schoolroom. Zillow claims around 160k now but it was probably 225k when it sold new. 4800 sqft postage stamp lot.
--
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 18:52
Even when I was poor, I had a 2200 Sq ft house so 2800 isn't that big IMHO.
When I think of BIG, I want to see homes starting at 3500 and honestly be heading into the 4,000 range.
C4
Here in TX I shudder to think of what that electric bill would be in the summer. On out 1800 house it was 350/month in the summer. Our apartment was 250/month this summer.
Is that sq ft including a basement? No one has basements around here. If so does it matter if its finished or not?
Business_Casual
11-13-12, 18:59
Sorry your guys areas have shit neighborhoods at 300k but there's some great people out here who don't live in 3000-4000+ sq ft houses that cost 700k.
It was sort of a joke about NoVA.
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 19:07
It was sort of a joke about NoVA.
Ah. Use emoticons otherwise it's hard to tell what someone's context is. :cool:
Here in TX I shudder to think of what that electric bill would be in the summer. On out 1800 house it was 350/month in the summer. Our apartment was 250/month this summer.
Is that sq ft including a basement? No one has basements around here. If so does it matter if its finished or not?
In VA, no on basement. In Ohio, yes for basement.
C4
CarlosDJackal
11-13-12, 21:03
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order...
Then why should the entrepreneurs suffer more than those who caused the problem? As had been pointed out before, if you take more revenue from those who would be creating jobs, you are going to reduce the number of jobs and probably see a rise in the cost of doing business. That is reality and very simple math.
If we really want to chip away at the national debt, how about we increase taxes for those who have been receiving welfare just because they are too lazy to find work, the overpaid politicians, the Solyndra-type executives who received Golden Parachutes, the GM and Chrysler executives who received a buyout, the Union Officials who are overpaid to begin with and those who were stupid enough to vote for obama a second time?
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-13-12, 21:12
I was more shocked by 2800sqft being on the smaller side.
Yeah when you're living in mcmansions in an expensive area then 250k isn't 'a lot' of money.
2800sq ft is more of a Wendy's or JackNtheBoxMansion than a Mc Mansion. ;)
All I know is that rich people make 10 times as much as I do, no matter how much I make.
I went to a high-school in Chicago and played soccer. We were playing one of the suburban teams and the cry on the bus to the game was "Let's beat the rich kids!". I actually moved that summer and my new school was that very same 'rich kids' suburban school. I played soccer again and when we were to play to suburb just a bit further out the battle cry as we were on the bus was- you guessed it- let's beat the rich kids.... and I'm sure when those kids got on a bus to play New Trier....
The vast majority of people i know making 250K+ yr.. do not work 40hrs a week with 15min union mandated breaks, slathered in benefits, etc.
They're working 80+ hrs week, with work, their small business constantly on their mind. On a per hourly rate the income isn't that remarkable. Esp considering the housing cost, lack of "vacations", cost of living, etc. in the areas necessitated for their businesses.
Most are reducing staff, changing biz models, closing, or moving to greener pastures due to the punitive nature of present legislation. All are ending investment in stocks & other activities which traditionally reward risk, innovation, (with less capital gains tax) in which success creates new jobs and job sectors.
Gov regulations now incentivize working less, taking less risk, creating less. Intelligent minimizing excessive liabilities to gov regs is not exactly a recipe to take risk and build a business.. create jobs.
Another misconception is that the "rich" is a set class. In static Europe yes very much so. With little opportunity to climb. In America the top 2% of tax payers ebb and flow with the success of their businesses. They are different people every yr. So when we have no monetary incentive to be a producer, to ascend, where will the tax money come from?
The faddish class warfare idiot-isms.. seem to project the economy is a zero sum game in which we just need to take more slices of pie from the "rich". Not.
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/sen-corker-optimistic-there-is-a-deal-to-get-beyond-fiscal-cliff-which-is-really-the-fiscal-foothills/
highlights:
Households with adjusted gross income of $250,000 or more accounted for 1.92% of the taxes filed in 2010, yet paid 45.65% of all income taxes. And the bottom 47.82% of tax filers paid for only 1.66% of total taxes paid.
Now, here is the bad news for President Obama and Senator Corker. The taxes paid by those households making $250,000 and over ($431 billion) doesn’t even pay down half the current budget deficit of over $1 trillion, let alone pay down any of the over $16 trillion in government debt. They would have to seize the entire taxable income of $1,575,399,427 of those households making $250,000 and above to erase the deficit and begin to pay down the debt.
But seizing the income of households making $250,000 and above just to pay down the deficit for one year and a fraction of the debt would be catastrophic in terms of GDP growth, not to mention that this group of 1.92% already pay 45.65% of the income taxes. I would say that they already pay far more than their “fair share.”
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 23:26
I would say that they already pay far more than their “fair share.”
Of course they do...but a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
At this point in time balancing the budget without cutting at least a trillion out of yearly spending is a pipe dream, and has it's own consequences.
The only answer is we are going to continue to rack up an unprecedented amount of debt, and see what happens.
Here in TX I shudder to think of what that electric bill would be in the summer. On out 1800 house it was 350/month in the summer. Our apartment was 250/month this summer.
Is that sq ft including a basement? No one has basements around here. If so does it matter if its finished or not?
Maui 1100 sq ft condo only ran a inwall unit once in a while and our single computer and single tv did not use the oven at all and the burners a bit ? I mean really low use
about $500+ a month :)
before kids when I met the wife I had a place about $720 sq ft never ran the air con rice cooker espresso machine and thats about it
$350+ a month
could not imagine a large house full time air etc.. :)
Belmont31R
11-14-12, 00:18
These are the houses less than a mile from me.
http://www.mlsfinder.com/tx_actris/saramariani/index.cfm?action=searchresults&searchkey=fd90e566-b7d5-fe1b-9394-e45d57c10911
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-14-12, 01:19
Again, worth the read for some here (esp the chart)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-13/youve-only-got-yourself-blame
Good luck
Again, worth the read for some here (esp the chart)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-13/youve-only-got-yourself-blame
I am not sure this means anything. Did those well-to-do kalifornians overwhelmingly vote Obama or was it the rest of Kalifornia that voted Obama. If you look at the county-based election maps, most of the RED/BLUE demarcation is urban/non urban so even though Kalifornia went Obama, most of the state looks red with blobs of blue in the urban areas. (most of the blue is urban, or indian reservation or similar looking at the county based election maps)
I don't know. But the statewide comparisons don't mean that much.
--
Business_Casual
11-14-12, 06:39
Maui 1100 sq ft condo only ran a inwall unit once in a while and our single computer and single tv did not use the oven at all and the burners a bit ? I mean really low use
about $500+ a month :)
before kids when I met the wife I had a place about $720 sq ft never ran the air con rice cooker espresso machine and thats about it
$350+ a month
could not imagine a large house full time air etc.. :)
Wait until Obama's war on coal gets going - the cost of electricity will double in 18 months.
Doesn't matter where you are buying it either, the EPA regulations will impact your prices regardless.
bc
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-14-12, 10:26
I am not sure this means anything. Did those well-to-do kalifornians overwhelmingly vote Obama or was it the rest of Kalifornia that voted Obama. If you look at the county-based election maps, most of the RED/BLUE demarcation is urban/non urban so even though Kalifornia went Obama, most of the state looks red with blobs of blue in the urban areas. (most of the blue is urban, or indian reservation or similar looking at the county based election maps)
I don't know. But the statewide comparisons don't mean that much.
--
Sorry, I should been a little more clear as to my rational. The point of the cite was twofold: Firstly, there are some here posting that $250M per annum per household is not an exceptionally high bar to clear. However as the chart indicates - $50,000 less or $200M is less than 4% of the households in the US; additionally you can see how these 4%ers are distributed by state (and concentrated in the Washington DC area). Secondly, the Gini co-efficient is worth noting. In 1968 the GC was 0.333, as late as 1998 it was 0.393. In 2012 was 0.469. The important part of this metric is the velocity of the change. The gap in incomes is widening at a substantially faster pace (the change in the dispersion between 1998 and 2012 was 3x greater, in half as long of a time period as the same change between 1968 and 1998 - this is the erosion of the middle class). Additionally - gini metric is only looking at income. If the same metric were to measure "wealth" it would be staggering. While cites vary among small percentages, they are universal in that the top 5% in the US have more that 50% of the wealth of the nation. I would surmise the same velocity of concentration would be apparent in such a metric as well.
Here is a good primer on Gini Co-efficents for those interested.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/gini-index.asp#axzz2CDH9cTgI
Good luck
Crow Hunter
11-14-12, 11:26
Man.
I live in a little house...
I grew up in a 1,200 sqft. house built in 1970 by my parents. My parents, my brother and I. My father grew up in the house down the road that was 800 sq ft and he had 1 sister and 3 brothers.:eek:
I bought a 2,001 sqft house in a very nice subdivision in Clarksville TN (in Sango) back in 2001 for $146,000. It thought it was too big. We had a 400 sq ft bonus room over the garage that we never even went into and a very nice hardwood floored dining room that my wife kept plants in.:D
We sold that house for $178,000 (I think) in 2007 before the market crashed and moved into our current 1,400 sq ft house with 2.5 acres with a large lake/pond in the back that cost us $142,000.
The closests are are little small but not too bad and the space that is there was wasted making the master bedroom and kitchen way too big.
My electric bill is $140 at the most in the summer and runs close to $200 in the winter, if it is really cold. (Stupid Heat Pump)
Everyone says I have a nice house.
I guess it has to do with what you are used to and the expectations for the area.
highlights:
Households with adjusted gross income of $250,000 or more accounted for 1.92% of the taxes filed in 2010, yet paid 45.65% of all income taxes. And the bottom 47.82% of tax filers paid for only 1.66% of total taxes paid.
Now, here is the bad news for President Obama and Senator Corker. The taxes paid by those households making $250,000 and over ($431 billion) doesn’t even pay down half the current budget deficit of over $1 trillion, let alone pay down any of the over $16 trillion in government debt. They would have to seize the entire taxable income of $1,575,399,427 of those households making $250,000 and above to erase the deficit and begin to pay down the debt.
But seizing the income of households making $250,000 and above just to pay down the deficit for one year and a fraction of the debt would be catastrophic in terms of GDP growth, not to mention that this group of 1.92% already pay 45.65% of the income taxes. I would say that they already pay far more than their “fair share.”
You're assuming that facts and figures mean something to them. They are only trying to divide this country. They are pitting Americans against each other so Americans won't rally against the government. It's a game to them but It's real life to us.
Point fingers at whomever you care to, the fact remains we spent a shit load of money we didn't have, wrote checks we couldn't cash, and ran up one hell of a debt. Now it's time to pay the piper.
That means higher taxes, reduced government programs, entitlement reforms with reduced benefits and means testing, and reduced defense spending until we get our fiscal house in order.
Bitter medicine? You bet. So shut up and swallow.
As long as those higher taxes apply across the board. If "we" did this then "we" need to swallow it together as you suggest.
Wait until Obama's war on coal gets going - the cost of electricity will double in 18 months.
Doesn't matter where you are buying it either, the EPA regulations will impact your prices regardless.
bc
IMHO, I also think in the next 5-10 yrs we will see major changes on how they (both parties) will try to pick your pocket of your lifetime assets before you checkout. Plan now the best you can, to have your $ go to who you want it to go to.
Crow Hunter
11-14-12, 12:32
IMHO, I also think in the next 5-10 yrs we will see major changes on how they (both parties) will try to pick your pocket of your lifetime assets before you checkout. Plan now the best you can, to have your $ go to who you want it to go to.
Yep.
The government thinks of 401k contributions and earnings as a "tax loss". I figure it is only a matter of time before they seek to recover those lost taxes.
I don't see any other way around it. Very few, if any, of the people I know have any 401k/Roth/Pension assets.
Where are they going to be when it is time for retirement? Standing on our doorstep saying: "You need to share" at the point of a government bayonet.
On another point. Anyone ever ask someone, particularly some of the "takers" group/Obama voters, "What % did you pay in last year to Federal Income Tax?"
It is both funny and scary what answers you get. Most of them say 25% or 30%. When they are making less than $10/hour with several kids....
Most of them don't even do their own taxes, they drop them off at the H&R Block store and get a refund anticipation loan. Never looking to see that they are getting everything back they paid in, or more.
Disgusting.
The government thinks of 401k contributions and earnings as a "tax loss". I figure it is only a matter of time before they seek to recover those lost taxes.
They already do recover them, just not all at once. When I take a distribution from my retirement accounts (401k and SEP, together rolled into an IRA), it is counted as ordinary income and I have to pay tax on it.
Where are they going to be when it is time for retirement? Standing on our doorstep saying: "You need to share" at the point of a government bayonet.
As I said, they already do get a share when I take my yearly distribution to live on. And so does everyone else under current tax law.
And, since my yearly IRA distribution gets counted as ordinary income, it throws me into a higher tax bracket as a result. None of this should be news to anyone.
Crow Hunter
11-14-12, 14:18
They already do recover them, just not all at once. When I take a distribution from my retirement accounts (401k and SEP, together rolled into an IRA), it is counted as ordinary income and I have to pay tax on it.
As I said, they already do get a share when I take my yearly distribution to live on. And so does everyone else under current tax law.
And, since my yearly IRA distribution gets counted as ordinary income, it throws me into a higher tax bracket as a result. None of this should be news to anyone.
Yep, but they are considering now that since most of your 401k contributions are during your high income years and most of your distributions are during your lower income retirement years, the government is losing revenue because you pay a lower percentage of taxes in a lower tax bracket.
What my fear is, based on what my cohorts seem to be doing, is those of my generation who have been doing the "right thing" and doing without and saving money towards our retirement will be the new "evil rich" in the future. I fear we will have to carry all those who have been "living it up" now and have no retirement as I firmly believe SS will be gone by the time I retire.
Kind of like the Ant and the Grasshopper, but instead of suffering in the cold, the Grasshopper will use his big brother to take from the Ants.
Yep, but they are considering now that since most of your 401k contributions are during your high income years and most of your distributions are during your lower income retirement years, the government is losing revenue because you pay a lower percentage of taxes in a lower tax bracket.
Yeah, that was the theory. But in my case they will get more in taxes from my 401k distributions than they lost on my and my company's tax-deferred contributions.
How can this be you might say? I have been contributing to my retirement for a long time. My first deductable IRA contribution (before I had a 401k or SEP) was in 1982 and I contributed the max, tax-deferred, one way or another every year since then. That time period had a whole lot more good years than bad so my tax-deferred retirement fund is pretty nice.
I also invested heavily with after-tax money during that same time period. So now I get to pay the price for being such a steady and successful investor by paying more in taxes than I would have if I had been taxed along the way on my contributions.
Since I think I have more than a few years left, I am currently rolling over all of my annual tax-deferred IRA distributions into a Roth.
Knowing what I know know, and how things have worked out, I wish I had converted everything to an after-tax Roth when that option first became available and I was still working with a nice income to pay the taxes due when I did.
They already do recover them, just not all at once. When I take a distribution from my retirement accounts (401k and SEP, together rolled into an IRA), it is counted as ordinary income and I have to pay tax on it.
As I said, they already do get a share when I take my yearly distribution to live on. And so does everyone else under current tax law.
And, since my yearly IRA distribution gets counted as ordinary income, it throws me into a higher tax bracket as a result. None of this should be news to anyone.
The taxes you will pay in the future on your IRA and 401k disbursements don't help the politicians/thieves now. So that is immaterial to them. They only care about now, and maybe tomorrow.
So, for all intents and purposes, to them, it is lost tax revenue.
--
The taxes you will pay in the future on your IRA and 401k disbursements don't help the politicians/thieves now. So that is immaterial to them. They only care about now, and maybe tomorrow.
So, for all intents and purposes, to them, it is lost tax revenue.
I realize this, of course. And no doubt I will get screwed for providing for my own retirement. But even taxed, I would still rather be a successful and steady investor, than the opposite. I should still have something while the opposite will have nothing.
Oh, wait - then they will probably just tax me more to take care of the old guys that never provided for their own retirement as I did. I feel like I am on a gerbal wheel.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-14-12, 15:28
Sorry, I should been a little more clear as to my rational. The point of the cite was twofold: Firstly, there are some here posting that $250M per annum per household is not an exceptionally high bar to clear. However as the chart indicates - $50,000 less or $200M is less than 4% of the households in the US; additionally you can see how these 4%ers are distributed by state (and concentrated in the Washington DC area). Secondly, the Gini co-efficient is worth noting. In 1968 the GC was 0.333, as late as 1998 it was 0.393. In 2012 was 0.469. The important part of this metric is the velocity of the change. The gap in incomes is widening at a substantially faster pace (the change in the dispersion between 1998 and 2012 was 3x greater, in half as long of a time period as the same change between 1968 and 1998 - this is the erosion of the middle class). Additionally - gini metric is only looking at income. If the same metric were to measure "wealth" it would be staggering. While cites vary among small percentages, they are universal in that the top 5% in the US have more that 50% of the wealth of the nation. I would surmise the same velocity of concentration would be apparent in such a metric as well.
Here is a good primer on Gini Co-efficents for those interested.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/gini-index.asp#axzz2CDH9cTgI
Good luck
Stop importing a small 3rd world country intothe US every few years and see what that does to income distribution. How the dems can hold onto working class whites and illegal immigrants, liberal Jews and Palestinians, and athesists and US hating fundamentalist muslims is an incredible balancing act.
Yep.
The government thinks of 401k contributions and earnings as a "tax loss". I figure it is only a matter of time before they seek to recover those lost taxes.
I don't see any other way around it. Very few, if any, of the people I know have any 401k/Roth/Pension assets.
Where are they going to be when it is time for retirement? Standing on our doorstep saying: "You need to share" at the point of a government bayonet.
On another point. Anyone ever ask someone, particularly some of the "takers" group/Obama voters, "What % did you pay in last year to Federal Income Tax?"
It is both funny and scary what answers you get. Most of them say 25% or 30%. When they are making less than $10/hour with several kids....
Most of them don't even do their own taxes, they drop them off at the H&R Block store and get a refund anticipation loan. Never looking to see that they are getting everything back they paid in, or more.
Disgusting.
When Roths came out and they said "Oh, pay the tax now and you can withdraw tax free later...." Sure that is going to happen in 30 years when I retire.
I think the tax arguement was poorly played by the GOP. Like you said, people think they pay higher rates than they do. The message should have been that if you pay taxes you need to vote GOP to keep the non-payers off your back. The Dems played that game smart. They showed old people and people with a lot of kids (deductions) with moderate income that don't pay taxes and people identified with them.
Even when I was poor, I had a 2200 Sq ft house so 2800 isn't that big IMHO.
When I think of BIG, I want to see homes starting at 3500 and honestly be heading into the 4,000 range.
C4
Yep. When our parents and grandparents were buying houses in the 60s the average size was about 1,400 Sq Ft. 40 years later society has changed and their needs changed. So sizes increased.
What is interesting is what got bigger; the common areas and storage. Folks wanted a 2 or 3 car garage, closets that were wider than 40", and pantries big enough to hold a good supply of food. People wanted kitchens they could work in and living rooms or family rooms that were big enough so that they weren't claustrophobic. More folks work from home so they want a dedicated office. Master bedrooms really only took off in size in the late 80s / early 90s and didnt really increase until the late 90s. What is interesting is the areas that didn't increase in size (the kids bedrooms) and the areas that have disappeared in many houses (formal living and dining rooms). You can thank Frank Lloyd Wright for this change in design.
The end result is that a house that is 2,800 sq ft and serves a family of 5, a dog or two, a cat or two, isn't that big. It's comfortable. Sure you could get by with less, but it is now the average is for now. I say for now because various architects are trying to undo this and get folks to go smaller. The average size of a modern built middle class home is about 2,200 to 2,500 sq ft. The 3,000 is about where you hit the "large" standard home. McMansion territory starts about 3,500 Sq Ft, but that depends on the design of the structure and where it sits.
Sorry for this architecture geek distraction.
Here in TX I shudder to think of what that electric bill would be in the summer. On out 1800 house it was 350/month in the summer. Our apartment was 250/month this summer.
Is that sq ft including a basement? No one has basements around here. If so does it matter if its finished or not?
Tampa here, so you got an idea of our weather. Put in a new 4 ton unit on a 2,600 SF (under A/C) house last year. Kept the A/C at 77 all summer. Highest bill was $362 this year. Mind you I still have not replaced the shitty contractor grade doors and windows yet. I have not re-done the insulation yet.
As for taxing the rich...my business is on track to make about $500,00 this year. Know what my take home pay is gonna be? about $50,000. Just posting this to reinforce the idea that just because your own a business and have what some would consider to be high gross sales, it does not mean that you see much if any of it.
Crow Hunter
11-14-12, 16:02
Mind you I still have not replaced the shitty contractor grade doors and windows yet.
From someone working in the fenestration business in design and doing testing/competitor tear downs.
Don't cheap out.
You DO get what you pay for from a performance standpoint and being in an Impact Zone area, you might need the performance.
Sorry for the derail.
PM me if you want/need some insider info.
From someone working in the fenestration business in design and doing testing/competitor tear downs.
Don't cheap out.
You DO get what you pay for from a performance standpoint and being in an Impact Zone area, you might need the performance.
Sorry for the derail.
PM me if you want/need some insider info.
Thanks, but you are sooo preaching to the choir. That's why I haven't replaced them yet. I am saving up for them. I'm a cash only kind of guy.
brickboy240
11-14-12, 16:31
HES...you are absolutely correct.
Just because you own part of a business that has high gross earnings...that does NOT mean YOU take home a huge paycheck.
My business grossed almost 7 figures last year. My take home pay is still in the 5 figure range. So is that of my partner.
Thats right....business owners have to put most of their earnings back into the business if they want it to grow or to last. Pay off high debt...plan for the future and have an emergency fund.
The idea that because you own a business...you are some sort of top hat wearing, cigar chomping country clubber rolling in tons of extra cash is just plain silly.
Keep pig piling on the taxes and regs to people like me and we will be forced to downsize, lay people off and eventually close up shop. There IS a breaking point where it is just not worth keeping the doors open and exposing yourself to the huge risk...you know.
But trying to tell those that have never owned or run a business about this is damned near impossible!
-brickboy240
With regard to 401(k)s, Congress held hearings on seizing all 401(k)s and providing a "guaranteed" rate of return. The justification for the seizure was 1) it reduced exposure to market risks and 2) it eliminated the unfairness of some being "lucky" by having such accounts and others being disadvantaged by not having them. Given that class warfare is a winning strategy, you just might see this proposal come back to life.
As for taxing the rich...my business is on track to make about $500,00 this year. Know what my take home pay is gonna be? about $50,000.
This math does not compute for me. Gross sales of $500 thousand, if that is what you meant, is not the same as making $500,000.
If your business is a sole propietorship or a C Corp, and it really "made" net income of $500 thousand the owner(s) would have had to pay personal income tax on the whole $500 thousand. It doesn't matter if you left the money in the company or not.
On the other hand, if your business is a C Corp and had net income of $500 thousand, and paid corp income tax on that amount, but the corp only paid you a salary of $50,000, then it does compute.
Which is it?
Crow Hunter
11-14-12, 17:50
Thanks, but you are sooo preaching to the choir. That's why I haven't replaced them yet. I am saving up for them. I'm a cash only kind of guy.
I figured if you were in the architectural business, you were probably up on it, but just in case you weren't, I thought I would offer my services to keep you from getting a substandard product.
I am the same way. :D
With some of the higher end product, you can get some serious discounts if you mention you are in the architectural or contractor type business when you start looking.;)
Alaskapopo
11-14-12, 17:54
Why not? As Bill Kristol pointed out today, almost all of the people (not all) are blue-state liberals and work in industries or areas that support Obama, so why not give them what they want? Heck, let's give them 50% top marginal rates if they so desire.
Let's keep the cuts on the middle and upper-middle class. Let's broaden the tax base so that more Americans pay something. The rest can come from cuts in spending to balance the budget.
Why?
Why not?
bc
I have no problem with them raising the rates to pre Bush era tax cuts on those making more than 250K. Pretty hard to feel sorry for these folks. Why their at it raise the capital gains tax up to match the payrole tax rate.
Pat
hahahahaha.. Cheers.. Ron
Raise the taxes already. Do it. We're not in the highest bracket, but ours should go up too. Take 38%, or whatever...
In fact, raise them as high as you like. I will work harder, more hours, or work under the table for cash, or something to make my family whole. Count on it.
If this bullshit issue is what is holding up progress, just do it, and move the hell on. The responsible folks in this country will adapt and overcome. Guaranteed.
However, at some point, you have to stop kicking the can down the road. We have some really tough issues we need to face as a country. If you need to know what they are, study Japan's economy in the 90's and up to around 2003. Study Greece, Spain, Portugal and all these other EU countries right now.
It's time to solve the problems, even if it means political suicide. These people are worrying about themselves, and how to keep THEIR gravy train rolling of power and money.
It's ****ing sickening.
It is amazing to me that the Socialist Democrats have effectively won the minds of the voting population. The complete ignorance of fundamental economic principles, and the lack of anything that vaguely resembles knowledge of the facts, mean we have a thread with members who you would think should know better spouting Marxist economics theory as a solution to the problems caused by the Socialists!!
I don't like either party, but I certainly prefer the republicans on guns and money. As an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian I am dismayed to hear/read the rants of people who should know better, about the validity of raising taxes.
The deficit is a product of a bloated, corrupt, inefficient government that squanders all the taxes paid and them, when all the tax revenue is gone, it raids our future buying power and causes the devaluation of our means of exchange, causing inflation, and a massive debt.
The tax rates are not too low, they are too high. The deficit was caused by a criminals spending other peoples money to buy votes from idiots and the ignorant. Yet people here want to raise taxes further and continue to let the bastards spend every penny and then give them even more!!!
The Socialist Democrats in congress caused the housing bubble with the CRA and forced lenders to make loans they refused to make before congress passed laws forcing them to. Then when that bubble burst and the economy suffers a correction the SocDems say the Republicans are to blame due to low taxes and a lack of regulation, and people here parrot that tripe!!
Sadly this was all laid out in the early 1900s when the Marxists realized that they could only hope to control an ignorant population. The deliberate dumbing down of the population has obviously worked...
This math does not compute for me. Gross sales of $500 thousand, if that is what you meant, is not the same as making $500,000.
Yes, I had $500,000 in gross sales. After all was said and done and I paid all my expenses there was enough so that I'll bring home to feed my family about $50,000. That is my taxable personal income and I am an S corp.
I figured if you were in the architectural business, you were probably up on it, but just in case you weren't, I thought I would offer my services to keep you from getting a substandard product.
I am the same way. :D
With some of the higher end product, you can get some serious discounts if you mention you are in the architectural or contractor type business when you start looking.;)
Oh I appreciate it. I'll probably tap you at some point in the future.
Bottom line..when you raise taxes of any sort on a retail or service business, the business doesn't pay the tax, the customers do.
Raise taxes. I honestly could give a shit less. Since all of my competition will be hit with the same taxes, we all will just pass it right on to the customers. My customers, which represent every level of the tax structure, will pay those extra taxes. My employees will take home less money, and I will too (I pay myself a salary since we are a corporation), but I'll give all of us a pay raise and I'll pass it on to my customers. All businesses will do the same and it'll be one big vicious cycle.
You cannot tax your way out of this problem without some sort of flat tax. Raising taxes on those that make over $250,000 in their businesses or raising taxes on corporations will only result in the cost being passed right down to the very people Democrats are trying to protect.
A flat tax without any loop holes or exemptions is the only way to go. Hit every single income earning American from the bottom up with a 10% flat tax. From the $300 my 13 y.o. daughter made babysitting to the 3million some CEO made. Extend that 10% to corporations (which would be a tax cut for them). Make the wage earner write the check every pay period and corporations quarterly. This puts us all in the same boat and breeds a sense of ownership in this country.
THEN...we need to cut like Hell on every level of government and it's foolishness.
Raven Armament
11-15-12, 00:39
Bottom line..when you raise taxes of any sort on a retail or service business, the business doesn't pay the tax, the customers do.
Yup. Mr Reagan said it best:
“You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes.”
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 00:53
If this bullshit issue is what is holding up progress, just do it, and move the hell on. The responsible folks in this country will adapt and overcome. Guaranteed.
However, at some point, you have to stop kicking the can down the road. We have some really tough issues we need to face as a country. If you need to know what they are, study Japan's economy in the 90's and up to around 2003. Study Greece, Spain, Portugal and all these other EU countries right now.
It's time to solve the problems, even if it means political suicide. These people are worrying about themselves, and how to keep THEIR gravy train rolling of power and money.
It's ****ing sickening.
Ending the Bush Era Cuts, providing for a modest increase on those earners of 250M+, and the spending cuts called for under sequestration are akin to trying to fill the Grand Canyon with a garden hose. In the face of the debt - it is ceremonial.
With respect to getting on with it, how can we even begin to get our arms around the nature of the problem until we audit the FED? If this doesn't happen - no one is serious.
With respect to the 'responsible people' adapting and overcoming - one little problem... some very intelligent people have co-opted some well meaning, but naive people and purposefully engineered a society - from what we eat (processed GMO based food stuffs), to what we (don't) learn, to a legal system that hands out felonies like candy to trick or treaters on Halloween, and a media / entertainment / marketing cabal that combines to create a significant population of fat, diseased, distracted, disenfranchised, discredited and utterly incapable of assuming responsibility for themselves people. As exhibit number one - LBJ's Great Society Program.
How convenient for Big Daddy Gov - @ 1/2 the population is generationally incapable of taking care of themselves thanks to such purposeful private and government programs. Turn the tap off too fast on this population - they revolt.
Conversely, if the choice really came down to it - taxes and cuts at a level that would really wipe out our debt - you pick the time period 10 / 20 / 50 yrs - the 1/2 of the folks that are 'responsible' are going to fracture into 1) Yes, I will forgo retirement, any inheritance I may be able to pass on to my heirs, likely any advanced health care, live a meager life, and likely die early (think Soviet era E. Germany) 2) those who will go Galt - pick up their marble and go play in a different sandbox. Esp - since by that time I would expect that everyone would fully wake up to the fact that the 'debt' is not the debt of the people - it is the debt of the bankers. Sorry. Cue the only option - Big Daddy Gov - and the only solution: a re-packaging of the same ol game.
I don't like either party, but I certainly prefer the republicans on guns and money.
Out of curiosity - what is it exactly that you prefer about R fiscal / monetary policy as opposed to D? Reagan was the first to engage in heavy deficit spending, Barry has just taken it to new heights. With respect the CRA - sure it started under Carter and was expanded under Clinton - under who's watch Glass Steagall was also repealed. However Lehman Brother started the MBS under Reagan (and started stealing from day 1) and the widest abuses of the MBS debacle - that dam near brought the global financial system down - all was under Bush 2. Milken? Junk Bonds? S&L Crisis? Enron? - All R. R / D? - two sides of the same coin.
On guns - you should research Ronnie's anti gun stance. You are aware that under Ronnie the Hughes Amendment was gaveled down by Rangel in a manner contrary to procedure and was then signed by Ronnie - correct? Again, two sides of the same coin.
And this year, the R's cheated the shit out of Ron Paul in the primaries.
Good luck
Belmont31R
11-15-12, 03:33
Raise the taxes already. Do it. We're not in the highest bracket, but ours should go up too. Take 38%, or whatever...
In fact, raise them as high as you like. I will work harder, more hours, or work under the table for cash, or something to make my family whole. Count on it.
If this bullshit issue is what is holding up progress, just do it, and move the hell on. The responsible folks in this country will adapt and overcome. Guaranteed.
However, at some point, you have to stop kicking the can down the road. We have some really tough issues we need to face as a country. If you need to know what they are, study Japan's economy in the 90's and up to around 2003. Study Greece, Spain, Portugal and all these other EU countries right now.
It's time to solve the problems, even if it means political suicide. These people are worrying about themselves, and how to keep THEIR gravy train rolling of power and money.
It's ****ing sickening.
Yup. It's a dog and pony show where they are going to "debate" and drag things out over what are really minor details in the grand scheme of things while the markets take a dump and the media trumps up the 'fiscal cliff' and makes a drama fest over it.
RancidSumo
11-15-12, 03:59
Bottom line..when you raise taxes of any sort on a retail or service business, the business doesn't pay the tax, the customers do.
Raise taxes. I honestly could give a shit less. Since all of my competition will be hit with the same taxes, we all will just pass it right on to the customers. My customers, which represent every level of the tax structure, will pay those extra taxes. My employees will take home less money, and I will too (I pay myself a salary since we are a corporation), but I'll give all of us a pay raise and I'll pass it on to my customers. All businesses will do the same and it'll be one big vicious cycle.
You cannot tax your way out of this problem without some sort of flat tax. Raising taxes on those that make over $250,000 in their businesses or raising taxes on corporations will only result in the cost being passed right down to the very people Democrats are trying to protect.
A flat tax without any loop holes or exemptions is the only way to go. Hit every single income earning American from the bottom up with a 10% flat tax. From the $300 my 13 y.o. daughter made babysitting to the 3million some CEO made. Extend that 10% to corporations (which would be a tax cut for them). Make the wage earner write the check every pay period and corporations quarterly. This puts us all in the same boat and breeds a sense of ownership in this country.
THEN...we need to cut like Hell on every level of government and it's foolishness.
I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows how I feel about raising taxes on anyone so no need to repeat myself again but I just want to point out that this isn't a factual statement. Businesses do not simply pass on the entire tax burden in most industries. It has to do with price elasticity determining the incidence of the tax on consumers/producers (or sellers) but the bottom line is that in luxury industries, most of the tax ends up being payed by the seller.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-15-12, 05:56
It's not about tax rates, its about the amount of the economy, directly and indirectly, under control of the govt and not shaped by market pressures. From direct taxes taken from us to taxes paid by other entities to indirect costs from regulations they all are the 'burden of govt'.
Complaining about tax rates paid by this income level or that level is like being captured by cannibals and complaining about how hot our part of the kettle we are getting cooked in is- it doesn't matter, everyone in the kettle is cooked eventually.
Alaskapopo
11-15-12, 06:03
It's not about tax rates, its about the amount of the economy, directly and indirectly, under control of the govt and not shaped by market pressures. From direct taxes taken from us to taxes paid by other entities to indirect costs from regulations they all are the 'burden of govt'.
Complaining about tax rates paid by this income level or that level is like being captured by cannibals and complaining about how hot our part of the kettle we are getting cooked in is- it doesn't matter, everyone in the kettle is cooked eventually.
Taxes have to be paid and the government does need to regulate the market to a degree. I do agree with a flat tax. Everyone pays the same from the very poor to the very rich.
Pat
Bottom line..when you raise taxes of any sort on a retail or service business, the business doesn't pay the tax, the customers do.
Like most blanket statements, this isn't necessarily true.
If we are competitiors and sell basically the same thing, but I am able to operate my business more efficiently (lower expenses) than you do, I can absorb the taxes, keep my prices the same and accept a lower margin. As a result, I will now have a price advantage over you and most likely will be able to move some of your customers to me.
One should not assume price increases will be automatic for all similar businesses. The less efficient will probably have to, while the more efficient may not have to.
....the validity of raising taxes.
Please tell me you are responding to me, please? If you are, re-read my text again, and maybe give a proper synopsis?
I am saying that if you are going to do it, just ****ing get on with it. Raise them all. There are other issues they need to address, and when the dems get their tax increase, and it doesn't do JACK OR SHIT to fix the problem, you have historical evidence on your side from that point forward.
It won't fix the problem? No ****ing shit? See the video I linked on the first pages. You an take 100% of everyone's shit that is in the Forbes 500 for personal and business, and then take $40 from every family and cover ONE year. One year.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-15-12, 08:30
Taxes have to be paid and the government does need to regulate the market to a degree. I do agree with a flat tax. Everyone pays the same from the very poor to the very rich.
Pat
And I think that we are losing the battle because we are fighting over tax rates, not over what the proper scope of govt is and more importantly what do we actually get for our money.
I think conservatives and liberterians should spend more time talking about specific places where the govt doesn't work well- not just old anecdotal ones but new ones, especially coming out of the 'stimulus' plans.
...no one is serious.
This is my point. No one is serious, and the sooner we get on with it the sooner that point will start to hit the logical liberals and conservatives in this country.
Almost every liberal I know, and some are actually friends of mine, are responsible, logical, and caring people. They are not economic genuises, or economic policy genuises, or even completely up to speed on anything having to do with the Lost Decade (Two Decades) of Japan, the current crises in the EU, etc.
They are typically socially liberal and want to do what feels right versus what may actually be right. They are almost all very successful in their jobs, and make a shitload of money.
When this stupid shit does not work, they will see it. They may not vote for a social conservative, but at least they might look to a more moderate liberal, like Mitt Romney. :D
nineteenkilo
11-15-12, 09:33
not over what the proper scope of govt is
This is, by far, the biggest elephant to ever grace a room in modern history.
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 09:37
Yup. It's a dog and pony show where they are going to "debate" and drag things out over what are really minor details in the grand scheme of things while the markets take a dump and the media trumps up the 'fiscal cliff' and makes a drama fest over it.
Speaking of dog and pony shows, the media, and market crashes....
If you aren't already, check out the S&P 500 E-Mini. This is the futures market that allows for HFT or algo rhythm high frequency computer generated trading. The only groups that trade here are the hedge funds and the big banks. On a near daily basis the e-mini crashes in a V shaped slide to the bottom. During the day the media puts out positive storys on the econ, the algo driven computers rocket the market back up in the same V shape just in time for the close.
Why? Well aside from the fact that nothing is real anymore, keep in mind the banking systems of the US, Japan, and those Euro folks are all married together, and in many ways - the banking system of the entire globe is married together too. Right now, we have over $700 Trillion Dollars in derivatives floating around. The majority of these are interest rate swaps. A minute change in that rate could have a devastating effect on default rates thereby taking the entire system. One last thought - the derivates market has been expanding every year. In 2011 it was $600T. The overwhelming odds would suggest that there is no graceful exit from the house of cards that has been built.
Good luck
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 10:04
This is my point. No one is serious, and the sooner we get on with it the sooner that point will start to hit the logical liberals and conservatives in this country.
Almost every liberal I know, and some are actually friends of mine, are responsible, logical, and caring people. They are not economic genuises, or economic policy genuises, or even completely up to speed on anything having to do with the Lost Decade (Two Decades) of Japan, the current crises in the EU, etc.
They are typically socially liberal and want to do what feels right versus what may actually be right. They are almost all very successful in their jobs, and make a shitload of money.
When this stupid shit does not work, they will see it. They may not vote for a social conservative, but at least they might look to a more moderate liberal, like Mitt Romney. :D
Great points. I would add one more to the list of 'Oh, this means we're serious this time' - any form of military intervention, action, or assistance not directly related to an on going attack on the nation's soil, shall be paid for out of the current year's budget, and shall not be paid for, or cause other line items in the budget to be paid for with deficit spending.
Yeah, that'll fly.
Good luck
On guns - you should research Ronnie's anti gun stance. You are aware that under Ronnie the Hughes Amendment was gaveled down by Rangel in a manner contrary to procedure and was then signed by Ronnie - correct? Again, two sides of the same coin.
People who were involved have stated that Reagan was ready to veto the GOPA of 86 due to the Hughes Amendment but was prevailed upon Larry Craig, NRA, and others to sign it because it was a huge net-win for gun owners, despite the Hughes Amendment. So this is not any sort of example of any sort of anti-gun tendency of Reagan. It is an example of non-absolutist politics, for better or worse.
But thank the GOPA 86 for the ability to mail order ammo and all sorts of other things we take for grated today.
-
Raven Armament
11-15-12, 10:23
People who were involved have stated that Reagan was ready to veto the GOPA of 86 due to the Hughes Amendment but was prevailed upon Larry Craig, NRA, and others to sign it because it was a huge net-win for gun owners, despite the Hughes Amendment. So this is not any sort of example of any sort of anti-gun tendency of Reagan. It is an example of non-absolutist politics, for better or worse.
But thank the GOPA 86 for the ability to mail order ammo and all sorts of other things we take for grated today.
-
That and the NRA told Reagan to sign it because they'd be able to get rid of the Hughes Amendment very quickly once it became law. That worked out well.
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 10:38
People who were involved have stated that Reagan was ready to veto the GOPA of 86 due to the Hughes Amendment but was prevailed upon Larry Craig, NRA, and others to sign it because it was a huge net-win for gun owners, despite the Hughes Amendment. So this is not any sort of example of any sort of anti-gun tendency of Reagan. It is an example of non-absolutist politics, for better or worse.
But thank the GOPA 86 for the ability to mail order ammo and all sorts of other things we take for grated today.
-
I'm not tracking...the Commander in Chief, the man who extolled the virtues of (the last stand of) Freedom (on earth) and our representative style of governance - signs into law - an ammendment that was born of corruption, and with the encouragement of other corrupt persons - and somehow, we are to believe that there is a kernal of good in that?
Sorry. We are of different mindsets.
ETA - this is just the Hughes ammend. Ronnie had a long line of anti gun positions going back to CA.
Good luck
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 10:43
Worth read
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-15/did-politicians-kill-buy-and-hold-dreams
Good luck
I'm not tracking...the Commander in Chief, the man who extolled the virtues of (the last stand of) Freedom (on earth) and our representative style of governance - signs into law - an ammendment that was born of corruption, and with the encouragement of other corrupt persons - and somehow, we are to believe that there is a kernal of good in that?
Sorry. We are of different mindsets.
If you look at the NET effect of the HOPA 86, it was a huge net win for gun owners. Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible (paraphrased from Bismark) and sometimes to advance you need to compromise. This is an example of that. Was it done perfectly? NO. Could it have been done otherwise? Yes. But it is not an example of anti-gun feelings by Reagan. It is an example of a bad compromise in the political process that ended up being a net-win for gun owners.
Unfortunately, absolutism does not work very well in the political sphere. To judge others by that measure just gives you a bad answer.
ETA - this is just the Hughes ammend. Ronnie had a long line of anti gun positions going back to CA.
And people evolve over time. Reagan at one time in his youth was a liberal card carrying Democrat if my memory serves me right.
Charlton Heston was not always "from my cold dead hands".
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 12:18
Unfortunately, absolutism does not work very well in the political sphere. To judge others by that measure just gives you a bad answer.
.
How about if we just hold the line on "No Corruption" and "Of the People, By The People, For the People"?
If you say that is absolutist (it is) where is the line?
When you answer, do you live by that same standard in your personal life? In your opinion is it OK to lie: 1) All of the Time, 2) Some of the Time, 3) None of the Time? Do you associate with those who lie to you? If #3, why would allow your government to behave differently?
Good luck
How about if we just hold the line on "No Corruption" and "Of the People, By The People, For the People"?
What does this have to do with what we were talking about (Reagan signing the GOPA 86) ? Pretty much nothing.
The Hughes Amendment, in and of itself, is not corrupt. Whether it is Constitutional is another matter. The way it was added to the bill was perhaps corrupt. That is a different matter. I agree we should not tolerate corruption. Unfortunately, you or I are not in a position to do anything about it. We can try and vote the corrupt people out, or you can try and file a lawsuit. Have you filed a lawsuit? You seem to be pretty caught up with this and feel strongly about it. If not, why not?
If you say that is absolutist (it is) where is the line?
Absolutist is not being able to compromise on political questions -- and in the end being bypassed and losing because you were unwilling to compromise. Now, certain compromises are not in you favor and should not be accepted and fought tooth and nail. Others, where there is a NET GAIN to your side, are worthy of consideration.
Anytime you have more than one person you have to satisfy, you will end up having to make compromises. Whether it is with your spouse, inside your family, at your gun club, or in your legislature (city, state, national). You will never get 100% of what you want without being tyrannical.
When you answer, do you live by that same standard in your personal life? In your opinion is it OK to lie: 1) All of the Time, 2) Some of the Time, 3) None of the Time? Do you associate with those who lie to you? If #3, why would allow your government to behave differently?
This is irrelevant (and no, I don't think it is okay to lie (meaning overtly saying falsehoods) personally. There are times when you may need to NOT SAY ANYTHING). It is irrelevant because I have TOTAL CONTROL over myself. I don't have to compromise with myself. I can lead my life the way I want to without any one else having a say (in regards the things you mention). That is not true in a group, whether a marriage, or a government.
That does not mean you tolerate corruption. If what they say about the Hughes Amendment never being passed is true, then procedural or legal means should have been brought to bear on that. However, once it was added and the bill itself was passed, it was a legally binding amendment and part of the bill. If I understand correctly, the issue is how it got attached in the first place.
It does mean that sometimes you agree to things you are not 100% behind (but IMHO, only if the net is to your benefit).
Good luck
Mo_Zam_Beek
11-15-12, 12:41
You're talking past the points - purposefully.
It is very simple - you either are OK with an element of dishonesty and corruption in politics or you aren't. It really comes down to one's opinion on the matter of should the Government (and the manner in which the People are governed) be the same manner in which we as individuals deal with our neighbor? Of the People, By the People, For the People.
You don't. I respect that. Please respect that I do. Categorically and without compromise.
Good luck
You're talking past the points - purposefully.
No, I am not. I address the points. You reply with general responses that say nothing to the issue at hand.
Pot, meet kettle
It is very simple - you either are OK with an element of dishonesty and corruption in politics or you aren't. It really comes down to one's opinion on the matter of should the Government (and the manner in which the People are governed) be the same manner in which we as individuals deal with our neighbor? Of the People, By the People, For the People.
You don't. I respect that. Please respect that I do. Categorically and without compromise.
And I wish you would stop putting words into my mouth. I believe government should be honest in all its dealings, not self serving, and about 99% smaller. That belief in no way undermines the reality that in politics, you don't always get your way, and if you don't want to be marginalized, you have to compromise with others.
Compromise is part of life. Deal with it. Unless you live by yourself out in the woods with no interaction with people at all. The compromise you seem to be talking about is something else it appears. I cannot tell, as you have totally ignored what I have said and talked past it. Obviously on purpose.
--
Deal with it.
It looks to me like he was trying to diffuse the situation, and that text above seems to appear to attempt to ratchet it up.
Can we ALL, try to stay respectful and keep this topic on an even keel.
Nevermind - Unsubscribed.
Like most blanket statements, this isn't necessarily true.
If we are competitiors and sell basically the same thing, but I am able to operate my business more efficiently (lower expenses) than you do, I can absorb the taxes, keep my prices the same and accept a lower margin. As a result, I will now have a price advantage over you and most likely will be able to move some of your customers to me.
One should not assume price increases will be automatic for all similar businesses. The less efficient will probably have to, while the more efficient may not have to.
That is true, regardless of the tax level. I am already efficient and competitive. I have to practice that at the current tax levels. I'll have to be efficient at the new tax levels also, but I guarantee that the increased tax on competitive businesses will raise each competitor's prices in a very similar level.
nineteenkilo
11-16-12, 13:21
I will throw in my .02. Some of us fortunate enough to live in a state that has some real leadership elements. Here's a good example from today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar5lRj5UAr0&feature=share&list=UUvnFl66TttbZXCcXoeOhg-g
Taxation must be dealt with one way or another.
When even somebody like JFK has the most pertinent quote stating why dropping tax rates is required, and nobody is getting the picture, we're screwed.
Spending too much - that's going to be hard to fix, but we're simply in for the government the electorate deserves, not the one it needs or wants.
The issue is that any marginal tax rate increase on any segment of the population is going to be associated with long term decline in tax receipts, if not immediate.
If you look at the size of the deficit in relation to mean gross tax receipts, we're underwater by at least a decade on debt - NO TAX INCREASE CAN HELP PATCH THIS HOLE, and anybody who says different is merely pitching a self-fulfilling case for further government intervention into every aspect of financial and economic activity.
Business_Casual
11-16-12, 21:51
When even somebody like JFK has the most pertinent quote stating why dropping tax rates is required, and nobody is getting the picture, we're screwed.
Spending too much - that's going to be hard to fix, but we're simply in for the government the electorate deserves, not the one it needs or wants.
The issue is that any marginal tax rate increase on any segment of the population is going to be associated with long term decline in tax receipts, if not immediate.
If you look at the size of the deficit in relation to mean gross tax receipts, we're underwater by at least a decade on debt - NO TAX INCREASE CAN HELP PATCH THIS HOLE, and anybody who says different is merely pitching a self-fulfilling case for further government intervention into every aspect of financial and economic activity.
There is another problem, the current interest rates are effectively negative, if you factor in inflation. If they rise a few points, which they will, the debt interest payments plus entitlement payments will devour the entire revenue collected. Bye bye USA.
Bc
Alaskapopo
11-16-12, 23:40
When even somebody like JFK has the most pertinent quote stating why dropping tax rates is required, and nobody is getting the picture, we're screwed.
Spending too much - that's going to be hard to fix, but we're simply in for the government the electorate deserves, not the one it needs or wants.
The issue is that any marginal tax rate increase on any segment of the population is going to be associated with long term decline in tax receipts, if not immediate.
If you look at the size of the deficit in relation to mean gross tax receipts, we're underwater by at least a decade on debt - NO TAX INCREASE CAN HELP PATCH THIS HOLE, and anybody who says different is merely pitching a self-fulfilling case for further government intervention into every aspect of financial and economic activity.
Spending needs to be cut thats very true however revenue also needs to be raised.
If I were in charge for a day I would do the following.
1. Create a simple tax code using a flat tax everyone pays 15% no loopholes.
2. Cut spending on social programs by limiting how long people can be on welfare on on how much they can recieve in thier life time. No more generations on welfare.
3. Cut military spending. We spend more than 100 times on your military than the rest of the world combined. We have no buisness being the worlds policeman.
Some hard choices need to be made.
Spending needs to be cut thats very true however revenue also needs to be raised.
If I were in charge for a day I would do the following.
1. Create a simple tax code using a flat tax everyone pays 15% no loopholes.
2. Cut spending on social programs by limiting how long people can be on welfare on on how much they can recieve in thier life time. No more generations on welfare.
3. Cut military spending. We spend more than 100 times on your military than the rest of the world combined. We have no buisness being the worlds policeman.
Some hard choices need to be made.
Best way to raise revenue at this point is to reduce overall tax burden. Under GWB we spent a ridiculous crapton of money, but that's also the highest income the federal government has had - it just got squandered on dumb stuff.
1: Yes please. I'm working on a masters and paying my wife's way through medical school. I'd love to turn more of our future income back into the economy instead of funding somebody's 'elect me' ponzi scheme.
2: Yes, but I think that will be far to contentious of a point, between disability (and faux-disability), as well as the welfare baby outputting set.
3: A whopping 25% cut would be about right, a lot of that could be done by doing away with prime contractors on any project over 10 million bucks, and cutting the cord on all of our old unused infrastructure and putting enough capital investment in over a couple years to actually afford the maintenance bill from then on. There would be some cuts to big programs, but I don't view military and VA spending as #1 on the priority list to cut - it just needs to be cut about half as much as entitlements and we'd be in good shape.
We spend more per infantryman because we (thankfully) have the political and national desire to minimize casualties, especially on our end, which simply costs a LOT of money. Couple that with the fact that our financial security is intricately tied to so many hot-point loci around the globe, and we need a pretty substantial global presence even without assuming the role of global cops - we shouldn't be the world's mommies in MARPAT, but it actually is cost effective to use force projection.
Spending needs to be cut thats very true however revenue also needs to be raised.
If I were in charge for a day I would do the following.
1. Create a simple tax code using a flat tax everyone pays 15% no loopholes.
2. Cut spending on social programs by limiting how long people can be on welfare on on how much they can recieve in thier life time. No more generations on welfare.
3. Cut military spending. We spend more than 100 times on your military than the rest of the world combined. We have no buisness being the worlds policeman.
Some hard choices need to be made.
Interesting, because none of your measures would significantly raise revenue. While your suggestion of a flat tax of 15% is a great way that I support to broaden the tax base, it will not change actual revenue all that much under the current economic conditions of 14% real unemployment. This of course assumes that you keep corporate tax rates constant and allow capital gains to go up with the sun setting of the Bush Era rates. 2 and 3 are great suggestions for spending cuts but their effect on revenue is not all that significant. In addition, military spending is only 20% of our budget so cuts here have little effect on our deficit.
The best way to raise revenue is to broaden the tax base while simultaneously returning the economy to what is historically full employment (~96%). Unfortunately, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank have created a structural unemployment problem in our country that is not likely to impove until either a) the healthcare bill is overturned (good luck), or b) we regress to a single payer which removes the burden from employers. However, "Plan B" would create another structural spending problem that easly overwhelms any improved revenue from full employment.
Bottom line, revenue is low now because of unemployment. No amount of tax increases is going to change that under these conditions. So, we must improve unemployment and broaden the tax base. Something tells me that this is not going to happen since Romney actually did a great job articulating this EXACT strategy, and he got shot down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.