Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, so wrong! Cities are the most economical way of living; what costs the nation is projects like the TVA...having to run power lines, phone lines, perhaps even water and sewer lines, USPS mail service, etc., out across millions of rural acres to service places where there's 1 person per square mile.
Yeah sure, do you not know about the thousands that are fed & clothed in big cities with our money? Not to mention other subsidies. If cities were economical it wouldn't cost so much to live there. Think about the logistics & what it costs our country to support a city like NYC compared to that one person per mile who likely does most things for himself.
Quote:
No one has said that here, in fact I've said the exact opposite about a dozen times in this thread alone. The REASON people came to this country -- millions of immigrants by the boatload from Europe between 1870 and 1930 -- was precisely because of the opportunity to get a job here and have something to show for it. "The streets were paved with gold."
You dont need to tell me why people came here. Mine came a generation ago, worked hard, saved & got ahead. Without the Gov't bailing them out or getting any aid. We cost this country nothing.
More than one person has said that they earned their money themselves & screw everyone else that couldn't make it. In a way I agree, I see no need to help underachievers or whatever, but I think that people spouting off like that should realize that they without a doubt use more of our national resources than a guy that works 40 hours a week for $45,000 or so a year.
This is the best country on earth, but it costs money to keep it that way & the more money you make, or take, the more of the resources you use.
Quote:
Again, NO ONE has said that a six-figure ($XXX,XXX) salary is poor. See, this is one of the big problems with you lib-tards -- you're so dishonest. Instead of dealing with the facts, you lie and say that things were said which in fact were never said...you selectively chop out words and clauses and entire statements and posts, to contrive something to attack since you can't attact reality since reality proves you wrong.
Liberal?
The only reason I chimed into this thread at all was the insinuation early on that $250,00 ayear was middle income. Thats the problem with you blowhards, you are so full of yourselves you cant take the time to see where someone really stands. I wasn't trying to attack anything except that notion. Then you chimed in with how its all relative & $100,000 a year isn't alot of money everywhere. I dont care if it is or it isn't alot of money but its not middle income. Middle income is about $60,000.
If a person makes $100,000 & finds it tough I dont have much sympathy.
I'v said repeatedly that I'd support a flat tax of 5% for everyone, including welfare recipients, I'm not for over taxing the wealthy, but I sure understand that their fair share is bigger than average. Hell, I just helped bail out hundreds of billionaire idiots, but my mortgage still needs paying.
Cant have it both ways.
Well, plenty of Americans would be living in near poverty if they actually lived within their means. Credit allows them to live far above their actual means.
bingo! housing wealth effect shifts into reverse:
Here is the devastating conclusion which this data leads to: 70% of American households own a home, but 50% of households have virtually no wealth. What does that mean? It means 20% of homeowners are maxed out, borrowed to the hilt, with little or no home equity to their names despite being "homeowners." In fact, they own almost nothing and owe almost everything.
Some simple math reveals that about 20 million homeowning households are extremely vulnerable to the reverse Wealth Effect. (75 million homeowners + 33 million renters = 108 million households. 50% of 108 M = 54 M with almost no assets. 54 M - 33 M renters = 21 M homeowners with little if any assets.)
Yeah sure, do you not know about the thousands that are fed & clothed in big cities with our money? Not to mention other subsidies. If cities were economical it wouldn't cost so much to live there. Think about the logistics & what it costs our country to support a city like NYC compared to that one person per mile who likely does most things for himself.
How convie-e-e-e-nient that you left out the fact I was talking about power lines and sewers.
What the liberal government of a certain city like NYC chooses to enact in the way of Welfare and feeding and clothing the poor, that's something unique to that particular city. It's not anything to do with cities in general. In cities, everything is closer together and thus less transportation is required and so it's economically sustainable for the masses, in a way that providing services to rural areas is less so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
I think that people spouting off like that should realize that they without a doubt use more of our national resources than a guy that works 40 hours a week for $45,000 or so a year.
This is the best country on earth, but it costs money to keep it that way & the more money you make, or take, the more of the resources you use.
Stannous Tittie, this is one of the most ridiculous things you've said thus far. If by "resources" you mean the green ink the treasury uses to print cash, then yeah the rich probably consume more resources than the poor. But I have no clue what the heck you mean by the statement that a man with a 40hr/$45k job uses less of our "national resources" (can you possibly be a bit more vague about what you mean?) than a man with a 60hr/$250k job. They eat the same amount of food, drink the same amount of water, burn the same gas in their cars, use the same postal service and power lines and water pipes, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
The only reason I chimed into this thread at all was the insinuation early on that $250,00 ayear was middle income. Middle income is about $60,000.
Where I live, $60k a year would make you $13k/year richer than the richest person in the town. So no, it's not "middle income" everywhere. IT'S ALL RELATIVE, you'll get a different answer by person, region, state, race, profession, and other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
I'm not for over taxing the wealthy, but I sure understand that their fair share is bigger than average.
(A) Life ain't fair.
(B) It's not a "share", it's not like there's a supreme ruler cutting slices of pie and handing them out. You get what you WORK for.
Last edited by SouthernFarmer; 10-08-2008 at 08:18 PM..
Yeah sure, do you not know about the thousands that are fed & clothed in big cities with our money? Not to mention other subsidies. If cities were economical it wouldn't cost so much to live there. Think about the logistics & what it costs our country to support a city like NYC compared to that one person per mile who likely does most things for himself.
You dont need to tell me why people came here. Mine came a generation ago, worked hard, saved & got ahead. Without the Gov't bailing them out or getting any aid. We cost this country nothing.
More than one person has said that they earned their money themselves & screw everyone else that couldn't make it. In a way I agree, I see no need to help underachievers or whatever, but I think that people spouting off like that should realize that they without a doubt use more of our national resources than a guy that works 40 hours a week for $45,000 or so a year.
This is the best country on earth, but it costs money to keep it that way & the more money you make, or take, the more of the resources you use.
Liberal?
The only reason I chimed into this thread at all was the insinuation early on that $250,00 ayear was middle income. Thats the problem with you blowhards, you are so full of yourselves you cant take the time to see where someone really stands. I wasn't trying to attack anything except that notion. Then you chimed in with how its all relative & $100,000 a year isn't alot of money everywhere. I dont care if it is or it isn't alot of money but its not middle income. Middle income is about $60,000.
If a person makes $100,000 & finds it tough I dont have much sympathy.
I'v said repeatedly that I'd support a flat tax of 5% for everyone, including welfare recipients, I'm not for over taxing the wealthy, but I sure understand that their fair share is bigger than average. Hell, I just helped bail out hundreds of billionaire idiots, but my mortgage still needs paying.
Cant have it both ways.
i would say that right now democrats are having it both ways. they are taking credit for being advocates for the taxpayers while leaving taxpayers with a big bailout package that is going to cost the little guy plenty. they blamed republicans for the failure of the bailout bill, and then they blame republicans for the passing of the bailout bill. why do you think warren buffet is a democrat and why do you think that warren buffet got a sweetheart deal on wall street? so you see that you can have it both ways if you just get the media to back you! the truth shall set you free, but information holds the leash.
You want to go ahead and explain that unsourced little bit of info, explain how 90% isn't 90%?
Here's an example using 2007 data for a single person:
AGI: $0-$7,825
Tax: $0
AGI: $7,825-$31,850
Tax: $782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825
AGI: $31,850-$77,100
Tax: $4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850
AGI: $77,100-$160,850
Tax: $15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100
AGI: $160,850-$349,700
Tax: $39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850
AGI: $349,700-no limit
Tax: $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700
Source (honestly, I assumed this was common knowledge and easy enough to find that I didn't provide a source the first time):
2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html - broken link)
Let's assume a person takes no credits and no deductions:
Person A earns $80,000 a year. Their taxes are $15,698.75 + .28($80,000 - $77,100) = $16,510.75
Person A was in the 28% tax bracket, but was taxed at an effective rate of ($16510.75 / $80,000) = 0.2064 or 20.64%.
Person B earns $180,000 a year. Their taxes are $39,148.75 + .33($180,000 - $160,850) = $45,468.25
Person B was in the 33% tax bracket, but was taxed at an effective rate of ($45,468.25 / $180,000) = 0.2526 or 25.26%.
As you can see, marginal tax bracket does not equal effective tax rate. And these examples assume that AGI is the actual income, while many people have tax deductions and tax credits which bring the AGI down from their actual income.
Now as income nears infinity the limit nears the marginal tax bracket, but will never equal the marginal tax rate.
This is from the first page. I know this is an old thread, but I had to finish the story.
----gjs4786 originally posted-----
Furthermore, you need to read THIS, hopefully it snaps you out of the mine mine mine attitude you partake in.
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them. "Not very long," answered the Mexican. "But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American. The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family. The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?" "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life." The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat." "And after that?" asked the Mexican. "With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise." "How long would that take?" asked the Mexican. "Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American. "And after that?" "Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!" "Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the Mexican. "After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends." And the moral of this story is: ......... Know where you're going in life... you may already be there.
------
And then after the narrator said the moral of the story, the middle man that the mexican sells his fish to, came by and said, "Hey there Mr. Mexican, I am afraid I have some bad news. I make over $250,000 and now instead of the 30% taxes I had to pay, now I must pay 40%. Oh and by the way, the processing plants that had to pay 35% now must pay 40% in taxes also. So now I won't be able to buy your fish at the normal price. I will have to cut that price down. I am terribly sorry."
Then the mexican says, "Excuse me, but I need to go fish now".
Obama wants ANYONE who makes $250,000.01 to pay bigger taxes. He considers those people "rich". In my state, you're pretty much just getting by (if you save money for your kids college funds, your own retirement, pay ridiculous property taxes, etc.) and maybe, mom can stay home if you didn't buy a house/car that you couldn't afford.
I admire you resolve and you are correct...personal responsibility is key. But there are those who try and can never get ahead. Those are the people who need and deserve help from the broken social programs. The problem is that there is a much, much larger group of people who are quite happy living off taxpayer monies...and don't care about anything...and actually live much better than those who struggle working 3 jobs while trying to provide for their families.
In my state, $42K gets you low-income status ( I think...I may have to go check that out)...throw a kid or two in there and you're probably hovering in the poverty range.
You think $250K is "getting by"? Well, I guess I'd love to live where you are, although money is all relative. $250K is NOT considered middle class in the majority of towns/villages/cities, etc. It is considered ABOVE-AVERAGE or RICH. My friends are married & have 2 kids, I GUARANTEE you if they were making $250K they would not be considering themselves middle-class. I'm guessing you surround yourself w/people of more money because there is no way the average american would consider that much money to be middle-class. Dubai, anyone?
And I am sorry if you are that poor then you are not paying ANY taxes or a very small percentage of your income. It may come out of your check but you get it back at tax time.
I know this because I used to be poor......
Did you have kids when you were poor?? As a single, childless, tax payer, I didn't get back the taxes I paid. Maybe, if I was lucky, I got about $200.00. Maybe. 1 year I got $33.00 dollars. (Though, I only make about 15k a year)
People who make that much don't always work harder. I guess they just work smarter. But you're right. Why would you want a job like working in a bank, or being a teacher (child care, school, college), or garbage man, or nurse or STNA, or a driver (bus, car, limo, etc), or in social services, or food services, or in retail, or at a hotel, or a police officer. or a fireman. They don't pay 250,000 dollars a year. Those jobs aren't important. We should leave jobs like those for teenagers. I say anyone who makes less than 250,000 should be ashamed of themselves for not aspiring to bring in the big bucks to be able to buy that luxury vehicle, or that big house in the hills or a second home. And how dare these people making less than 250,000 dollars a year even seriously consider having a family, children, a spouse or partner, or even a dog. Why should they want a home or a car. Why should they want to be a stay at home parent?? They don't make 250,000 dollars a year. Get your butt up and get a job. Better yet, get 2.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
