You guys file your taxes? (in Off-topic)
A friendly reminder from a concerned fellow citizen. Do it. You can get free moneys from Obama. I know I am.
April 14 2009 4:53 PM EDT
Filed Return, Got Return, Spent Return.
April 14 2009 4:55 PM EDT
"You can get free moneys from Obama."
And I am the reason your getting your "free" money.
So please spare me this Obama garbage.
I work very hard and trained very hard to get where I am. I would like the benefit of being able to enjoy it without having to pay for all the uninspired people who believe they deserve a free ride.
I just have 1 question:
Where the hell is my stimulus?
April 14 2009 4:55 PM EDT
Wouldn't that be 2 weeks too late (if you happen to live in the Netherlands, where you file taxes before april fools)?
April 14 2009 4:56 PM EDT
Ranger, you're not the only person who didn't get a stimulus. Trust me, it isn't just the rich who get screwed every year.
April 14 2009 5:01 PM EDT
Just sent out my request for extension. I'm pretty awful at doing taxes on time, and I'm 20 years old, so... yeah.
And Ranger, I know it sucks. My dad's a doctor as well and he hates the whole thing with taxes... but I just have no good solution and obviously neither does the government. :\
April 14 2009 5:01 PM EDT
I got 68 dollars from the government this year.
You can have it if you want, Ranger.
April 14 2009 5:07 PM EDT
I would love to know how the unemployed leeches get hosed over on their taxes.
Here is one statistic that you should read:
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
So please do not tell me I am not paying my fair share and then some and some more and some more on top of that.
And yet Obama wants me to pay even more.
So again, where the hell is my stimulus.
I would love to be able to refinance my mortgage I got at 6.5%.
But you know what? I cannot since I take responsiblity and bought a house I could actually afford. One that I looked at and calculated how much I could afford to pay every month.
I actually took responsibility for what I did and do.
So for me to be able to refinance my mortgage I was told that I would have to miss 3 payments and bargain with my lender to redo it.
So, to get a break, I have to break the law. Great system Mr. Obama is enacting. Enabling those who fail to take responsibility. While punishing those who actually play by the rules. By---Wanting us to pay MORE TAXES!!
April 14 2009 5:09 PM EDT
And I am getting a refund. In fact a rather large one.
But it was my money anyway, the government was just holding it for me so I would not get any penalties in case I underpaid.
Hence, the term Refund and not Windfall.
Or in some people cases, free Obama money.
April 14 2009 5:10 PM EDT
Unemployment is not a choice for the vast majority of those without jobs.
The poor and "uninspired" leeches the government by getting benefits (free rides). The "rich" and "imaginative" leeches the government by holding a bunch of employees hostage and extorts the government (followed by huge bonuses). Guess who is the ones being squeezed? The middle class hard-working good model citizens.
The world now rewards laziness and being creative with money, good old hard work just don't pay off anymore.
$0.02 from someone not in U.S. of A. and barely over 20.
April 14 2009 5:13 PM EDT
"Unemployment is not a choice for the vast majority of those without jobs."
I feel your pain, man. :(
April 14 2009 5:28 PM EDT
Don't cry about it, Ranger. Honestly.
April 14 2009 5:34 PM EDT
"Unemployment is not a choice for the vast majority of those without jobs."
I would have to disagree with you there. Although it might be hard for them to find jobs now, while you say it is not a direct choice, there were decisions in their life that led to them being unemployed. While I would be ok with paying higher taxes at the benefit of the poor, some are not okay with this, and it is their choice.
"The world now rewards laziness and being creative with money, good old hard work just don't pay off anymore."
I have to agree with you there.
April 14 2009 5:34 PM EDT
If you ever become a success and make a decent income, just remember you will not get to enjoy it as Obama and the other liberals will take most if it away.
Quite the incentive to succeed.
My wife's grandmother owns a large kennel in St. Louis. She is holding off hiring due to the tax increases threatened. Many other people who own businesses are doing the same.
What is happening now is certainly worth crying about. In fact, I am crying about how much debt my 2 kids are going to inherit. It keeps me up most nights in a cold sweat.
April 14 2009 5:35 PM EDT
"Don't cry about it, Ranger. Honestly." Go to school for 7 or 8 years after highschool, pay over 300k dollars in school, then try to see if you don't complain a little bit.
April 14 2009 5:36 PM EDT
It's not upper class by any means but I just quit a job making 60k/year.
Are you feeding yourself? Do you have a roof over your head? Does your family have food, water, shelter?
If so, you're better off than about 50% of the world.
April 14 2009 5:37 PM EDT
My dad was barely middle class. He did manual labor for a living.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, I made correct choices in my life to be where I current am. And sacrificed quite a lot. In both time, money and effort.
So again, yes I am crying. Every night.
April 14 2009 5:42 PM EDT
How about those who weren't born in the correct place or at the correct time and didn't even get a chance at the luxuries you take for granted? Or the tens of millions who are forced to work 12 hours a day to maintain a lifestyle we would consider extreme poverty?
Wake up man, you've got it good. We all do.
April 14 2009 5:45 PM EDT
Yes. We have it good, but I don't think you understand the point, I will try to lay it out for you simply. We have it good, but it is our choice (or at least should be), if we choose to help others or not. Also, how we go about helping others.
April 14 2009 5:47 PM EDT
That applies to all taxes, which are unconstitutional. Taxation without representation. :)
April 14 2009 5:48 PM EDT
How about those who are unable to get a job due to medical issues, cannot file taxs at all and are still fighting with the government to get on SSI or disability so you can feel like you can do something other than sit there and stare at the wall, waiting on the point where you can no longer scrape together rent for an apartment and become forced to live on the street.
Big, frackin deal if you have to pay taxs. Heck, I'm envious of you for that aspect because it means you can work and live.
Besides the vast majority of people who cannot get a job in this day and age, was told I was over-qualified at Best Buy two months ago, there are those who are medically unable to do squat.
So no, I don't feel your pain that you make more than the rest of us and have to pay more. Its a tax.
April 14 2009 6:04 PM EDT
Im at a job where i make 16k a year im married with 2 kids if i can live off of that then who can lol.I just wished i got paid more to show me how much my company loves me and they dont.I dont even make enough to take the company health care because i cant afford it.So stay healthy and postive and one day good things will happen.
April 14 2009 6:20 PM EDT
"You guys file your taxes?"
Filed. Got my return. Used it to survive another month.
Ranger, you didn't get a stimulus because you didn't need it.
And we need it because people like you voted for the people who killed our jobs, raised the cost of living, and turned a blind eye when we started to lose our health care, incomes, and homes.
It's hilarious that you continue to complain that the millions of us who have suffered through this stood up and said "enough is enough" instead of bending over and asking for more. Trample us long enough, and we'll stop being led around by the Republican party and their constant divisive, religious propaganda long enough to vote back our self-interests.
You think only of yourself. Those of us living through this hell that your side created don't care much if you can afford a sixth yacht and a ninth mansion or not. We just want to keep food on the table.
(Ok, the mansion guy was John McCain, not you. But that was a perfect reason to vote against him. One of many.)
its funny, this thread was a simple reminder to file your taxes and it turned into this lol!
April 14 2009 6:31 PM EDT
"religious propaganda" That should be taken out of your statement. If it wasn't for my Biblical beliefs I would have no problem with giving absolutely no money to the poor.
basic structure of socialism :D everyone is equals.
i belonged to the bottom 95%. I got all kind of free money :D
April 14 2009 6:40 PM EDT
You know, the funny thing is, people with an average wage in Europe get taxed up to 60% of the money paid by their employer, and higher-paying jobs can even go towards 75% tax out of the employer's money given for that person. The reason people don't complain is that the taxes are partially "hidden", as various employer-side taxes and so on and so forth. Oh, and there's never a refund for private citizens. Also, there's the VAT (which is roughly similar to the sales tax, but more complicated).
So, actually, you can get taxed 4/5 of your money ove here, and still not many people complain about "socialism" or "high taxes" or stuff like that.
Just my 0.02 Euro...
April 14 2009 6:56 PM EDT
Hm, funny, the "stimulus" received by my wife and I, $600 each, in calendar 2008, counts OFF the refund. I didn't see one extra cent of "Obama money" in the Federal refund deposited into our account several weeks ago.
Believe me, I double checked, on TaxACT's software and at IRS.gov... No extra money here.
Where are folks seeing this ethereal Obama money?
April 14 2009 6:59 PM EDT
Yes high taxes drive me nuts. There really isnt that many reasons out there that can hold one back from being successful. Almost everyone has the same oppurtunity. Doesnt matter if your born into rich or poverty. It just takes ambition. This is what a lot of people lack.
My family by all means was not wealthy. I moved out when I was in highschool making 7 dollars an hour. I have worked my way up to 50K a year. I am going to college and once I get my degree, I will be able to have the chance to earn 100K or more a year. I totally agree with Ranger and like to hear that there are more people out there that share my same views.
April 14 2009 7:02 PM EDT
And rrowland, I think trying to explain the "lottery of life" concept to anyone is a lost cause. Your audience will insist that no matter where they were born, what color they are, and whether or not they have a penis has nothing at all to do with where one ends up. Where one is is because of hard work, sacrifice, and making the right decisions, and that point can be anywhere one wishes. Apparently.
Believe me, I thought exactly the same way until age 20 when an income distribution class really made me stop and think (go GAI!). I'm not saying one thought process is a slam dunk over another, but I can say I don't personally understand the thought process that says no matter what, you can go from state A to state B, regardless of where A and B happen to fall.
April 14 2009 7:07 PM EDT
""religious propaganda" That should be taken out of your statement. If it wasn't for my Biblical beliefs I would have no problem with giving absolutely no money to the poor."
The Republican party has manipulated the masses into funneling money up the economic chain by using Christianity as a divisive tool since I can remember. I don't retract it, but I agree that's another argument not fit for this thread.
But for the record, it's my lack of biblical beliefs, and my atheist, humanist ones - mainly the ones that tell me -people- are the most important thing in existence - that leads me to support more consideration for the middle and under classes.
April 14 2009 7:11 PM EDT
And Ranger, if you know people holding off on hiring, that's too bad. Their loss. Don't use that as a data point -- it's ridiculous.
I'm looking for a move and a job right now. YIKES! YEAH! In the middle of a recession! "Sutekh, boy, you done gone and went CRAZY!". Not really. Real companies, the true, forward-looking entrepeneurs are still hiring (I should have an offer within 5-6 days). Where I work now? Let's just say we've been a programmer down since Christmas and yet had the best month of collections we EVERY HAD in March.
Smart move? Nope. It's letting go of the brass ring exactly when it should be held on for dear life and leveraged for greatness.
I'm tired of businesses saying they need to let so many people go and "play it safe". How about you play it according to what can and needs to happen instead of worrying about instant profits or Wall Street analysts? That's one point only the business owners get to have -- when to erroneously pull back and buy into the fear factor. Ridiculous. You know what makes the economy so knee-jerk cyclical? FUD: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
And we all know FUD sucks. Right?
April 14 2009 7:12 PM EDT
And LB... Amen. Just -- amen.
"Unemployment is not a choice for the vast majority of those without jobs."
Not sure if this has been covered seeing as i stopped reading when i got here, but this is a gross misconception. The vast majority of those unemployed are as such because they are too lazy and feel they can get by without a job. That is not to say that there are many many people out there without jobs that truly want to work, because there are tons of those people too. But when you talk majority, you're talking about the same ones Ranger's complaining about...
Meanwhile, there's plenty of people out there with more money than their grandchildren could ever spend in their lifetime who've never worked a day in their life and never contributed a single thing back to society except for being born to the right parents. These are the people that make the "rich" seem like such easy targets. Granted, most people with substantial amounts of money have gotten it by working hard for at least most of their life, this is yet another case of bad apples spoiling the bunch.
April 14 2009 7:15 PM EDT
Heh, taxes collected monthly at source with no need for any action on my behalf. Inland Revenue send me my details yearly and not the other way around...
Yay for the UK tax system :)
April 14 2009 7:20 PM EDT
Care to back up your latter point with data, Hatch? Most folks with a large nest egg got it with "hard work"? You'd have to define "hard work" first, I suppose. Then crunch the numbers.
I'm asking as a pure spectator. I have neither a substantial amount of wealth, nor have I worked particularly hard. I'm a white male in America with a decent head on his shoulders who had the opportunity of a nice education without ever having to worry about my health, safety, meals, shelter, or clothing.
American + white + penis + (not totally stupid) = kinda do what you want
I've never felt entitled to what little I have earned. All I had to do pretty much was stay awake when necessary.
I'm supposed to hate the poor and/or unemployed because of that?
April 14 2009 7:42 PM EDT
I received my 300 from obama's stimulus, never saw a penny on the 2-3 bush sent out. Took a huge loss on my capital income 2 years in a row.
Obama's stimulus is a max of 1200 per married couple max of 600 per person and if you make over a certain amount you dont receive it.
Were as bush's was you make under a certain amount you dont receive it, and the more you make the more you received.
my roomate just figured out that he makes more money sitting on gov. check than to work at Starbuck :D
April 14 2009 8:13 PM EDT
It's really obvious who the liberals and conservatives in this thread are.
That being said, I agree with Sut and LB.
April 14 2009 8:16 PM EDT
Wait, now I'm so confused on your beliefs Ror, lol.
April 14 2009 8:54 PM EDT
Thak, yeah, we got the 1200. Last year. And now, by all accounts, we gave it back. When I typed in the monies we received in TaxACT, the refund went down by exactly that amount. IRS.gov confirmed the correctness of that reduction.
So, the stimulus was not any stimulus at all. If I weren't able to discount mortgage interest and the interest from my wife's student loans, our refund would have been right around not-much.
The "vast majority"? Let's see your numbers.
By my look, flipping ever-so-lazily through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate (all numbers applicable to those over 16) in 2007 was 4.5ish percent. It is now 8.5ish percent. For the "vast majority" of the currently unemployed to be lazy, 85% (my own stab at "vast majority") of that 8.5ish percent would have to be the lazy sort. That's a sudden outbreak of laziness, spreading like SARS.
April 14 2009 9:16 PM EDT
"I would have to disagree with you there. Although it might be hard for them to find jobs now, while you say it is not a direct choice, there were decisions in their life that led to them being unemployed. While I would be ok with paying higher taxes at the benefit of the poor, some are not okay with this, and it is their choice. "
The decision I made that led me to being unemployed was going to University for four years and paying whatever amount I am in debt in school fees. If I Hadn't done this, I could have gotten a job at minimum wage when I left high school and worked up from there. As it is now, there are no jobs, least of all for people with degrees. I can't even get a job at minimum wage. They look at my degree and decide that I wont be staying with them very long, so why bother training me to do their job? So yeah. Sorry I went to university.
At my last interview, I asked how many people had applied for the job. 190 people. Normally, they would have had 60. Most of those people had the same qualifications I had, but also years of industry experience behind them.
April 14 2009 9:27 PM EDT
You realize bast that part of that 4.5% is natural unemployment, part of which is frictional unemployment. For those of you who don't know what frictional unemployment is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_types
April 14 2009 9:47 PM EDT
^She does realize that. She also realizes that a sudden jump from 4.5% to 8.5% CANNOT be due to laziness.
Uh, you guys realize that the unemployment rate, being the proportion of people willing/able to work that cannot, has absolutely nothing to do with these lazy people, right?
April 14 2009 10:32 PM EDT
"The vast majority of those unemployed are as such because they are too lazy and feel they can get by without a job."
This might be true where ever you live, but in my hometown, unemployment is hovering at a staggering 20%. You try getting a job in conditions like that.
I'm not sure I understand this part of what you said:
"those who are unable to get a job due to medical issues, cannot file taxs at all and are still fighting with the government to get on SSI or disability so you can feel like you can do something other than sit there and stare at the wallﾅ"
If you get on SSI or disability, it will make you feel like you can do something other than sit there and stare at the wall? I'm not really at all familiar with how these things work or what disability it is in particular that you're referring to, but how would this help you to be able to work (or do anything else) in a way that you currently can not? Or did I completely miss the point of what you were saying?
"And we need it because people like you voted for the people who killed our jobs, raised the cost of living"
Accusations like this are not conducive to a productive discussion. Furthermore, unless you are a prostitute or a drug dealer (or, I suppose, a stem cell researcher during the Bush administration), I don't see how your jobs were killed by legislative or executive action on the part of anyone in the government. If your company failed, blame the boss.
"Trample us long enough, and we'll stop being led around by the Republican party and their constant divisive, religious propaganda long enough to vote back our self-interests."
What's divisive is the false notion that either government-endorsed party is better than the other, and the general timbre of comments such as yours.
"this hell that your side created"
Side? I didn't see anyone declaring sides.
"The Republican party has manipulated the masses into funneling money up the economic chain by using Christianity as a divisive tool since I can remember. I don't retract it, but I agree that's another argument not fit for this thread."
You divide people using Christianity to funnel money up a chain? Somehow, I'm not convinced this would be an effective plan.
"But for the record, it's my lack of biblical beliefs, and my atheist, humanist ones - mainly the ones that tell me -people- are the most important thing in existence - that leads me to support more consideration for the middle and under classes."
Christianity also teaches that people are the most important things in existence (besides God, who doesn't need money), so I think we're in agreement for all practical money-managing purposes.
Unless I'm thinking about this backwards, that would make Bast's analysis even more true, as the relative increase in unemployment would actually be even more when compared to your adjusted figures that don't include frictional unemployment.
April 14 2009 10:48 PM EDT
Here is a stat for you. Where i live there is a population of 3.5+mil people. and there is a little over 1 mil of them unemployed atm.
What did you think was going to happen when every thing is being merged, i mean monopolized, and cutting everyone one else out downsizing and streamlining.
Remember the saying dont put all your eggs in one basket.
April 14 2009 10:49 PM EDT
Yeah, what i said was a little contradictory, b/c I misread her post. But, also, they 4% increase would include people in frictional unemployment also.
April 14 2009 10:50 PM EDT
the 4%, silly uneditable posts.
April 14 2009 11:43 PM EDT
"Accusations like this are not conducive to a productive discussion."
It's true though. Those who voted Republican over the last two terms are the ones responsible for them being in office, and all the things they did.
And I include myself in that, because I voted for Bush in 2000. The difference is, I learned better after the first four years and voted against them once I saw the direction we were headed with them.
"Furthermore, unless you are a prostitute or a drug dealer (or, I suppose, a stem cell researcher during the Bush administration), I don't see how your jobs were killed by legislative or executive action on the part of anyone in the government."
The Republican party allowed widespread deregulation of the financial market which snowballed into what we have now. It's not like they're the only ones to blame, as pretty much everyone is. But only a few weeks before the election, John McCain was bragging about how he was a "deregulator." Those that voted for more of that are part of the problem.
And before that the Republican party's policies encouraged manufacturers to ship their jobs overseas. At least Obama offered during his campaign a tax cut for businesses who create American jobs, and his economic recovery plan that Republicans hate so much is aimed at doing the same. All Republicans offered was a tax cut to the wealthy that they -hoped- might lead to new jobs.
"What's divisive is the false notion that either government-endorsed party is better than the other,"
If you're not making $250,000 a year, and one party is offering to help you pay the bills and the other is offering to give your boss (if you're lucky enough to have one) more money, there's only one clear choice. Yes, right now one IS better than the other at reaching out to the underclass.
And for the record, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal independent. Right now I just hate the Republican party far more than I hate the Democrats because of the last eight years.
"and the general timbre of comments such as yours."
Sorry, I didn't realize that only conservatives were allowed to rant on these boards.
Give me a break.
"Side? I didn't see anyone declaring sides."
As Mistgun said, "It's really obvious who the liberals and conservatives in this thread are."
You just can't be missing where Ranger and I stand.
"You divide people using Christianity to funnel money up a chain? Somehow, I'm not convinced this would be an effective plan."
You're not American are you? The Republicans won the 2004 election on "family values." Translation: ban gay marriage and abortion! Obviously two positions that come primarily from the religious right. And they've been using the "this is a Christian nation!" shtick to drum up votes for as long as I can remember. Oh, and do you remember Sarah Palin?
The Republicans have always used religion to push their pro-rich, anti-lower-middle class agenda. It's glaringly obvious.
"Christianity also teaches that people are the most important things in existence (---***besides God***--- ...)"
My emphasis, not yours. People of faith put this deity above people. The key difference here is, I don't. NOBODY trumps people.
But like I said, religion is for another thread, and since I agree that concern for the poor can come from religion as well, it's mostly a moot point.
..except for the fact that the party of Jesus and big religion in this nation is also the pro-rich, anti-lower-middle class party that calls us struggling to keep our jobs and our homes "lazy." Sure, they'll use faith to get votes, but not to enact policy to ensure the people at the bottom aren't suffering.
April 14 2009 11:51 PM EDT
"... The key difference here is, I don't. NOBODY trumps people."
April 14 2009 11:53 PM EDT
NAFTA = Clinton.
Overseas job anyone?
the north american continent is now overseas? ; )
April 14 2009 11:58 PM EDT
"NAFTA = Clinton."
And I voted against her too.
..or at least I would have. Had the blasted Democratic party not stripped Michigan of it's delegates. Useless Democratic party...
Instead I just verbally assaulted a lot of Hilary supporters.
..ok, not really. But I was consistent in voicing my opposition to her whenever the opportunity presented itself.
April 15 2009 12:00 AM EDT
/me didn't file taxes for 4 yrs.....
hehe, irresponsibility ftw!
April 15 2009 12:02 AM EDT
As well, I am not Christian and am a staunch Republican.
And there are plenty of Agnostics and Atheists as well. To pull religion into this discussion serves no purpose as it has no bearing on quite a lot of Republicans.
I believe that you should be able to reap the rewards of hard work and resultant success. Help for people who really need it certainly, but help just for doing it is utter crap. And Obama is just giving money away, throwing stuff against the wall hoping something, anything sticks.
And crap can eventually stick somewhere.
perhaps the staunch replublican just forgot that nafta = bush in reality?
"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexico's President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch before it could actually become law. In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton."
April 15 2009 12:10 AM EDT
Started by Bush, Passed by Clinton.
So not all jobs overseas or out of the US are due to the religious zealots also knows to some as Republicans.
April 15 2009 12:16 AM EDT
"I believe that you should be able to reap the rewards of hard work and resultant success."
The problem is, there are a lot of people out there working hard and not getting paid a fraction of what some yahoo on Wall Street made to help the financial system to collapse.
..or some rich brat who's daddy made tons of money, and who will get a fortune now that the estate tax went poof, but who is utterly worthless as a worker.
..or a sports star/movie star/etc. who doesn't "work" at all but gets paid millions basically to get pampered, "work" a few months a year, and have fun since it's basically play.
Hard work doesn't always result in great pay.
Great pay doesn't always come from hard work.
If these things correlated 100%, we might be on the same side here. But they don't.
Oh, and this is leaving out people who would be perfectly happy to be working hard, even without the glorious pay, but can't now because all the work is gone. I can name several of these people that I see on a weekly basis.
"And Obama is just giving money away, throwing stuff against the wall hoping something, anything sticks."
He's "giving money away" hoping that some of these people that I've been advocating for are rescued from that which is not their fault and they have no control over. And that it will help create jobs for these people to go back to. So yeah, let's hope some of that "crap" sticks and everything can go back to the way is should be.
April 15 2009 12:22 AM EDT
The problem with giving money away is that he is mortgaging my sons future in hope his plan works.
And while there are rich brats and sports athletes as well as those CEO's who abused the system, they are quite few compared to all those who made their money via hard work.
Just as there are those who are victims who truly need help.
However, does that mean that I have to give and give and pay far more than my share due to succeeding?
April 15 2009 12:32 AM EDT
"they are quite few compared to all those who made their money via hard work."
And as I said, there are those doing hard work - literally, physically demanding hard labor, 50+ hours per week - who get paid less than a lot of office bums who just happened to fall into a disproportionately well paying job.
You're a doctor, right Ranger? What makes that more worthy of a higher salary (and lower taxes, but that's an aside for the moment) than the guy busting his behind 60 hours a week doing construction, or any other physical labor job? I just don't get it. Some get paid more because they're jobs are in higher demand, not because they work harder. What makes one job worthy of higher pay than another to you? Certainly, it's not hard work that's the determining factor. If it was, I know a few people who should be millionares right now but who are currently living paycheck to paycheck, if not worse.
"However, does that mean that I have to give and give and pay far more than my share due to succeeding?"
Yes. As a prosperous member of society, I believe it is your duty to pay a bit more to help those in need. Otherwise what kind of values do we have as a nation when we allow the poor to starve and die for the comfort and luxury of the upper class?
April 15 2009 12:35 AM EDT
Like I said in my earlier post, there are not that many excuses out there for one being unemployed. Location is not a reason for unemployment, but that of an excuse. Move like a lot of others do. As a lot of you know, Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the U.S. I have a lot of family up there unemployed. I told them all, I will pay for them to come out here and they can stay with me for free until they get a job. Guess how many have taken me up on my offer. Yup thats right, not a single one. People are happy being unemployed and being on welfare. That is whats sad. The government loves people on welfare because then people rely on the government. Which gives the government the upper hand.
April 15 2009 12:38 AM EDT
Does this make any sense to anyone?
There is a salary cap on how much a school can make but not big businesses. Now what is the logic behind that. If anything it should be the other way around.
April 15 2009 12:50 AM EDT
If I have to explain why a physician who went to college and medical school, followed by a 3-7 year residency makes more than a day laborer then we really cannot have a meaningful discussion.
Please, go to a Communistic country where physicians and other professionals make the same as laborers.
You really have no idea what I do for a living. If you did, you would understand how after a weekend of call, I feel like I just went 12 rounds with Mike Tyson.
Working hard is far more than using your muscles. Using your mind can be just as exhausting.
I could have been a teacher, and I do enjoy teaching. I was residency director while in Phoenix. However, I made a CHOICE to take this career path. For numerous reasons including job security and compensation. I have never done anything illegal. Always played by the rules. Never declared bankruptcy. Had times where I lived paycheck to paycheck while in residency. However, CHOICES made by myself led me to success.
With affirmative action and similar laws, it is very hard for someone not to have a chance to succeed if they are willing to truly sacrifice and work hard. However I see the lack of initiative so often and complaints that things are not given instead of earned.
As I stated many times above, I spent 13 years in college and training to get where I am. 13 years of numerous sleepless nights, 13 years of going up to 2 days without sleep. 13 years of making either no money up to the equivalent of 4 dollars an hour. All taking a large debt.
So please spare me the rhetoric.
Now, I know we significantly disagree about the progressive tax system in America. I believe that everyone needs to pay their share, proportional to what they earn. But what is on Obama's plate, that is super taxing those making more then a certain income, is just insane. Where is my free money from Obama?
We need to encourage spending and investment. To make me pay more taxes is having the exact opposite effect. As it is for most of the people I know.
Of course, as stated, there are people who really do need help. We have to help those. However, to blanket spend hoping something happens is just madness.
can we agree that as long as there is a system, the group of people that games(or manipulates) it the best will be best off under that system.
Ones we accepted that
and Democrat (favours lower class) and Republican (favours upper class)
While slightly simplified, I think it is suffice for the following point.
Under Democrat rule, the poor gets help, but then those that abuse those benefits by choosing to be unemployed or hide their asset or whatever gets help that they don't need.
Under Republican, the economy gets the help, but then some of the rich just sets themselves up to take advantage of "stimulas package" etc.
Again, I have shown that any strict system is going to fail because of the greed of some individual. Anarchy FTW!!!!
April 15 2009 1:14 AM EDT
I get it from our queen =D
April 15 2009 2:15 AM EDT
CC: I just really wish I could get a job. Even as a programmer and web designer, living in the Seattle area, I'm unable to find work, even from home, due to the fact that most companies don't want to hire a person with Petite Mal Epilepsy. I'm a health risk and my insurance rates are higher.
April 15 2009 8:29 AM EDT
OK, Ranger, let's boil it down, then (since you've made your point abundantly clear). I agree, the economy needs help. You've lambasted Obama's spending, likening it to throwing semi-sticky things 'gainst walls.
What would you do differently? From what I gather, since you don't like what Obama is doing (or trying to do), your prescription would be:
-- Don't bail out banks. They made bad decisions, they need to live with them.
-- Don't bail out failed mortgages. Those home-owners made bad decisions, and are probably lazy, so they need to live with it.
-- Don't bail out any unemployed folks. They can get jobs, they just need to stop being lazy.
-- Don't spend more money than we have to invest in infrastructure (roads, energy, medical records, etc.) -- we can't have future generations shouldering any of this burden. Doing that would be lazy.
Bottom line, gleaned straight from your own posts: you want no debt for your children and no "hand-outs" for those who have lost out due to their own bad decisions and laziness. (You can correct me if I am wrong on that summary, but like I said -- you've made your point abundantly clear, so back-pedaling on any of that would pretty much just make your entire body of work moot.)
So, in light of the current economy and in light of the criteria you yourself have laid out for acceptable solutions, what would you do? Just standard trickle-down voodoo like Reagan in 1980? Maybe we can have an arms race while we are at it and build massive debt in that more acceptable way? I'm just throwing out ideas to start the brainstorming...
I'm asking this in all earnestness, because I have no idea what we should do, and bail-outs rub me the wrong way (by and large) as well. I'm also pretty cheesed about the Obama Administration's recent stance on wiretapping and such (Hint: so far their legal stance looks more fascist and intractable than anything the W gang ever did).
So, I'm all ears on what will solve our issues. And just saying "Don't do this" and "Don't do that" doesn't feed the bulldog. Let us hear your real, viable solutions when you get a chance. You are clearly a hard-working, intelligent, invested man, so I am sure you can shed some light in the direction we should be heading.
April 15 2009 9:11 AM EDT
Seems the economy did rather well under Reagan's "voodoo Economics".
The massive interest rates for mortgages went down to reasonable levels.
In fact, he restored the economy that Carter destroyed.
The tax and spend policies of Obama are wrong.
I would lower taxes especially for small businesses and let growth occur.
Indeed, as I stated numerous times, there are people who really do need help. The financial institutions are in shambles. But do NOT put all the blame on Bush. Clinton and Carter also had a lot to do with things. Such as having their part in deregulating banks. Making loans quite easy for anyone anytime to get.
"Places in the eye of the storm as job losses mount are the UK's core cities and areas associated with traditional manufacturing - places which in many cases had yet to recover fully from previous recessions before this one set in"
Nah, they're all obvisouly just lazy peons.
"I would like the benefit of being able to enjoy it without having to pay for all the uninspired people who believe they deserve a free ride."
So would I. But I don't begrude the Taxation system because of the bottom feeding scum that abuse it.
But labeling everyone who uses and needs the support our Taxation provides is gross selfishness.
I'd be happy to make sure you don't pay for anyone else Ranger. As long as I could also arrange that you in turn had no access to any Govenment backed support that arises from Taxations. No idea what you get over the other side of the pond, but for example, no free Refuse Collection. You'd have to pay for a private company to do that for you. Etc.
I'm decidedly naive, I'll admit. But it hardly seems fair to me to take Ranger's cash, and spend it on things we don't need (Swine odor control, anyone?), people who shouldn't be getting it (GM, Chrysler, Banks), and everyone else (my parents!).
I'm sure he's worked his butt off for his money, and even though my parents are in bad financial straits, they have refused to accept any more cash from the government, because they know that it's really either a) Our money, or b) Someone elses money!
ranger, you talk about mortgaging your sons future as being a bad thing but then say reaganomics worked? how do you reconcile the growth in national debt during that period?
In other news, (un)Happy Tax Day everyone! :)
April 15 2009 10:12 AM EDT
CEO getting raises for running a company into the ground. Raises should be the last thing they receive, it should be a pink slip with their last pay check and get a new CEO for cheaper salary.
My dad at his job just got denied a raise cause it wasnt in the budget he was told, but there new CEO got a 55% pay increase from just under 2 mill. That 55% the CEO gave himself was enough to give everyone in the company a raise that make less then 60k a year.
To much of the above going on in companies right now.
The bail out money is only being dished out so freely at first cause if you research the 30's the financial institutes failed and is what lead to the depresion. Our goverment saw that we were headed down that same road so they just started throwing money at them hoping it would fix it self. Now that it is not they are receiveing all the backlash.
April 15 2009 10:16 AM EDT
Oh yeah not to mention they are now closing 3 of there locations by july and laying off everyone that works at those locations. They are already starting to get rid of all their contractors.
April 15 2009 10:29 AM EDT
So that's the whole plan: no bail-outs, and tax-cuts for businesses?
Isn't that sort of what the previous administration was implementing right as the economy really started to collapse? That didn't seem to help.
Sure, I suppose Reaganomics worked OK... I personally remember the Eighties as being worried about nuclear holocaust, farm crises very close to home involving farmers so distraught they killed their own families then themselves, and reading a lot of news about how huge the Federal deficit was growing due to the nuclear arms race. Overall, though, I don't give Reagan credit for specific economic growth any more than I give Clinton credit for the prosperity of the 90s. In the long term, the economy rolls up and down based on factors larger than an administration's directives, and it will do the same thing this time.
The only issue now is how well we can try to cushion things or come out better, quicker. I have no reason to believe trickle-down would help with anything along those lines, so just making a few tax cuts than sitting back sounds like a somewhat lukewarm strategy. Should we maybe throw some more deregulation in there while we're at it?
April 15 2009 10:48 AM EDT
Most of my key points have been quite distorted.
There are people who need help.
However, throwing money at everyone and everything is not the answer.
The banks certainly need some regulation so this does not happen again.
However, raising taxes is going to scare business and people who employ others into not hiring and not spending.
Reagan's ideas helped the economy grow and set the table for the 90's boom. I remember the 80's as the fall of communism, obtainable mortgages, and growth.
But the financial crisis was not done by Bush alone. Clinton, Carter, Bush the first and even Reagan had influences in it. To say the Republican are the cause is quite myopic. I accept it is a multifactoral process that has to be fixed.
But again, throwing money up in the air, hoping someone needy gets it is not the right thing to do. And to tax businesses and those who succeeded to get that money is wrong.
April 15 2009 10:54 AM EDT
"In the long term, the economy rolls up and down based on factors larger than an administration's directives, and it will do the same thing this time."
April 15 2009 11:11 AM EDT
Administrations can make huge differences in how the economy grows or stagnates.
Just look at the Carter years compared to the Reagan or Clinton years.
Under Carter taxes were quite high, which Reagan lowered. Look how quickly the economy in the early 80s rebounded.
I personally see Cartereque policies under Obama which really scares the poop out of me. And this massive debt bill that was passed is the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The speaker of the house is even talking about a 2nd Spendulus bill in the near future.
I caution you that the realities of our situation are bigger, older, and scarier than any of us here realize (unless there is some economist lurking in the background laughing at all).
Populist ideology in a social democracy should be expected, and hell maybe even encouraged. When I think of regan, I think of the pawn who gave up on helping the mentally ill and disabled and put them out on the street. I think of the man who characterized the entitlement system as being an allowance for fat women who drove a Cadillac and wore Mr. T quantities of jewelry, pandering to the most hateful parts of us. I remember a host of secret wars in sovereign nations funded by our tax money. If that's what it takes to have a bustling economy I'll be happy to find myself broke and jobless.
It's been a long time since the financial system in this country was free from manipulation by the powerful. I believe that unless we deal with the infection in the bowels of our democracy this cyclical dysentery we are experiencing won't end until our feeble frame crawls through our own filth into a shallow grave. History already has plenty to say about our behavior thus far, lets not make the ending of our chapter too comical.
April 15 2009 12:29 PM EDT
The Carter administration would be a good example of forces larger than any one group or nation having the bigger affect, unless you think Carter was somehow responsible for the gas crunch. If you ask folks who were working adults in the 70s what they see as one of the biggest factors in the economy, my guess is that most would say the gas crisis really set the stage. My only regret is that we didn't learn the fossil-fuel lesson back then. Imagine if a real, true, sustained energy policy had been put in place back then to harness wind, sun, and grid efficiencies better. We'd be thirty years into a mature solution by now, and who knows how that could have affected things. Because there is actually one administration that DOES have an inordinate amount of influence over the world economy -- it's called OPEC.
The wind-down of the Vietnam War, including our not-so-graceful exit would be another large factor of the Seventies Disarray.
Look, I give as well as I take away. Like I said, I don't give credit to Clinton for any aspect of the 90s boom, nor do I only blame W for the economy now. I haven't pointed a single finger. My issues with W range more into personal liberties and asinine imperialism -- not the economy. To say a presidential administration can control or even more-than-roughly steer the economy simply is not true. Even FDR didn't "solve" the great depression. World War 2, sadly, did that. Losing populations and breaking a bunch of stuff tends to have that effect.
April 15 2009 12:30 PM EDT
Instead of being angry with the poor and unemployed for "taking your money", you should be mad with the government for spending your money:
A) Funding an unnecessary war for oil and
B) Paying back their unavoidable, continually mounting debt to the Federal Reserve due to the fractional reserve system.
More than 4/5 of your tax money goes toward those two items.
"Under Carter taxes were quite high, which Reagan lowered. Look how quickly the economy in the early 80s rebounded."
in my opinion, the rebound in the 80's was made by deficit spending and increasing national debt. it was probably called for and worked well. the problem that i saw was that after the rebound the deficit spending continued longer than was necessary and pretty much into the clinton administration.
which is why i asked ranger the question i did above. if he is against mortgaging our children's futures, how can he want to go back the perceived golden age of reaganomics and tax breaks for the wealthy through deficit spending and growth of national debt?
April 15 2009 1:25 PM EDT
so I've read every post thus far and Ranger while I understand (and somewhat agree) with your frustration on the taxes and stimulus and such keep in mind two things:
The gov't does not have the luxury of being able to take the time to determine which individuals justify government aid, there are 300 some odd million people in the US. And secondly they are faced with a large debt but at the same time the threat of a depression. To say "wow our debt is huge and we cannot justify spending because it will hurt future generations" is quite irresponsible. Obama ultimetely has few options: in an ideal world there would be no recession and he could start to pay down deficits, however the recession requires spending in order to avoid a major economic collapse.
In the end it's just bad timing.
And I will say that I don't agree with complaints on high taxes for the rich. I live in Canada where if you're making over 100k you're most likely going to be taxed approx 50%. Additionaly doctors here receive government regulated salaries much lower than US doctors. At the end of the day I don't believe that a high tax is enough of a deterrent for somebody with ambition to say ah sheesh the taxes are just too high so I have no desire to suceed. If you've got the drive to be successful no amount of taxation (short of socialism) will stop you from achieving your goals
April 15 2009 1:27 PM EDT
If you want to be doing a comaprison of presidents, you should be using Hayes (if my memory serves correctly) as a economic stand point. He basicly wiped the US debt out in a situation that is very similar today. Not these self indulgent selfish baby boomer presidents.
I thought the governments job was to punish criminals and fight wars, when the need arose.
And let's face it, the gov. can't even keep the streets clean, so I highly doubt that they are equipped to handle a world-wide economic crises. ;)
April 15 2009 1:41 PM EDT
How about we all just do a government wipe. Fire all the yahoos in office now. Re-hold elections and the only people that are aloud to run are people that have no ties with corporations, lobbist, politicians. Only the average joe can run.
That should keep us going for another 50 years or so before corruption and greed start to set back in since people seem to not be able to learn from there mistakes these days.
There, problem solved discussion ended :)
Our forefathers have to be rolling over in there graves at the site of what the goverment has become.
April 15 2009 2:01 PM EDT
"At the end of the day I don't believe that a high tax is enough of a deterrent for somebody with ambition to say ah sheesh the taxes are just too high so I have no desire to suceed. If you've got the drive to be successful no amount of taxation (short of socialism) will stop you from achieving your goals "
I know of many people from very high tax countries such as Sweden who are not going back to live once they get their education due to the high taxes.
Tax high enough and one will certainly lose the incentive to succeed.
April 15 2009 2:21 PM EDT
"Tax high enough and one will certainly lose the initiative to succeed." I have to agree with you there. Why create a system that rewards laziness and stunts advancement.
April 15 2009 2:24 PM EDT
incentive* Sorry on a phone and couldn't c & p.
I didn't read EVERY post up there, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about "lazy unemployed people looking for a free ride".
I am currently unemployed (as of this week) laid off due to the economy spiraling down the crapper. I sat down with the owner of the company (a long time friend) and he literally cried as he told me he would be unable to continue to pay for my employment. Nothing on my end, just the business cannot afford to keep me on (or 3 of my co-workers).
I cannot claim unemployment as I was self employed the better part of the year and don't have the required 900 hours or whatever. (something like 850 ZzZ) (and I paid literally 25% of my income in taxes, so I don't want to hear any whining from a single one of you... ever paid 25% of your money to taxes. NON NEGOTIABLE!!! a fourth of your money GONE.
I was looking at the unemployment and GAU programs for my state, and it's something like $300 a month... I would hardly call that a "free ride".
So to recap I just went from making 65,000+ a year to making nothing, and the government's best offer is $300-400 a MONTH...
April 15 2009 3:42 PM EDT
On a side note Sut, you may be interested in the recent percent of unemployed males to males in the work force, compared to unemployed females to females in the work force.
April 15 2009 5:16 PM EDT
"Why create a system that rewards laziness and stunts advancement."
Should I bring up the rolling bonus? =P
April 15 2009 5:20 PM EDT
How does the rolling bonus reward laziness?
I never really understood that.
i think the better question would be how does the rolling bonus reward laziness any more than the n*b?
April 15 2009 5:28 PM EDT
Neither do I...
April 15 2009 5:29 PM EDT
I'm not really looking to argue that point too much, just the opportunity for a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
But if I leave and come back it's easier to start with 85% of top mpr than 0% no? Assuming the rolling bonus allows you to go from 0% to top mpr in 6 months still.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002ikq">You guys file your taxes?</a>