People march on Wall Street-Media Blackout - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 28th, 2011, 08:53 PM   #21
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
What does the Government or the IRS have to do with executive compensation? They are letting those high income people keep more of what they make than ever before, but it is "Wall Street" i.e. stock holders and Boards of Directors that are setting these compensation levels.
Thats an interesting conundrum.... LETTING people keep what they earn. Buried in that line of thinking is the notion that all things belong to Government in the first place.

IRS and Government set the stage for wealth redistribution based on the tax code. The IRS collects the taxes and those elected leaders in Government write the tax code. As much as you, or anyone, would like to separate the two, it is impossible if you wish to be honest about what is really going on.

If you take issue with the level of compensation dictated by stock holders or board of directors, get yourself on one or the other so you to can dictate executive compensation. The only time a private citizen should be interested in an executives compensation are

a) when that executive is running a GSE
b) when that executive is breaking the law
c) when that executive is running the company that private citizen works for and that employee thinks the executive is playing fast and loose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
The rich shoulder a majority of the tax burden largely because the rich receive a majority of the income and hold a majority of the wealth. No, they are not breaking any law in doing so, but they could be pushing this country into class warfare.
You have a long row to hoe if you believe, and want others to also believe, its the rich pushing this country into class warfare. The first place you need to look for that "nudge" is the White House and the folks the Obama administration has surrounded itself with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
We could go back and forth on what is "fair". Is it fair to tax someone at a higher rate just because they have more money? Is it fair to take money from someone struggling to get by while others have more money than they know what to do with?
We were a country built on laws. We have become a country built on men. In an asinine attempt to equalize all things, we have built into our system of check and balances a need to elevate some over others based on

a) race
b) gender
c) environmental or social circumstances

We are all "created equal." In that is the protection that I have the same opportunities placed in front of me as the person standing next to me. The next move is mine. I, you, or anyone else do not have a protected right to success. If I choose to take that ball and run with it, and the person next to me decides not to, why should I be treated differently in both my class rating, income, gender, race et al JUST because I choose a different path?

I know it seems this is going off on a tangent, but it really isnt. Because it all ties back into the IRS being used as a tool for wealth redistribution. And if you dont believe the IRS is being used as a punitive tool, go have a listen to Maxine Waters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
For most of that 70+ years the income tax rates have been more progressive than they are now.
And does that somehow make it right? You would be doing yourself a favor if you look into the history of the income tax in the US. When it started, who started it and how quickly it escalated as soon as the lawmakers saw how easy it was to take money from the citizens to spend as they see fit.

However, we dont have a taxing problem in the US. The revenues into the treasury are significant and plenty. We have a spending problem. You dont solve a spending problem by raising taxes so that "base line budgeting" can continue. You dont call a 3% reduction in an automatic 7% increase in a budget, a cut. Thats a lie and is perpetrated by every level of our Government.

None of this even touches on the Debt or the Deficit. We are having to borrow money JUST for daily operations of the Federal Government. Only problem is we arent borrowing it, we are printing it. I wish I could run my personal finances like that. Our elected leaders have turned into aristocrats, and the sad part, not enough of the voting populace knows what an aristocrat is nor are they aware of how this country came about. It is, in real life, the idea of -those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it-. We are living in rare times.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Want to know what happens when 51% of the people no longer feel that the government and economic system is working for them and allowing them to lead a comfortable life?
The same thing. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner. Our Constitution insures that sheep is well armed.

Last edited by opie; September 28th, 2011 at 09:03 PM.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 28th, 2011, 09:13 PM   #22
Hombre
I carry a shank
 
Hombre's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-15-06
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,502
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I hate all hippies equally.

Hombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2011, 09:51 PM   #23
osteologation
Everyday I'm Shufflin'
 
osteologation's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-31-08
Location: Caro, MI
Posts: 1,709
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

https://occupywallst.org/

I ran across this a few months ago while trying to learn some more about Anonymous.
Seems they have no real clear agenda and just want to be annoying.
osteologation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 12:01 AM   #24
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre View Post
I hate all hippies equally.
Right. How dare those people speak their minds in the street in the presence of the police. This country would be oh so much better as a police state with the wealthy in control of everything.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 01:29 AM   #25
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Thats an interesting conundrum.... LETTING people keep what they earn. Buried in that line of thinking is the notion that all things belong to Government in the first place.
Right, I should have used the phrase "people GET to keep what they earn" like you did, because that's oh so different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
IRS and Government set the stage for wealth redistribution based on the tax code. The IRS collects the taxes and those elected leaders in Government write the tax code. As much as you, or anyone, would like to separate the two, it is impossible if you wish to be honest about what is really going on.
The IRS is the government, so why would anyone try to separate the two?
I'm actually not a big fan of using the tax code for the redistribution of wealth. I hate that there are credits that allow people to get back more than they paid. But I don't have a problem with a progressive tax that taxes those with more ability to pay at a higher rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
If you take issue with the level of compensation dictated by stock holders or board of directors, get yourself on one or the other so you to can dictate executive compensation. The only time a private citizen should be interested in an executives compensation are

a) when that executive is running a GSE
b) when that executive is breaking the law
c) when that executive is running the company that private citizen works for and that employee thinks the executive is playing fast and loose.
Of course because I can't afford to buy stock I'll never be able to do that. Your message is clear, only wealthy people have the right to decide what other wealthy people should make. Us lowly surfs need to shut up and put our heads down and get back to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

You have a long row to hoe if you believe, and want others to also believe, its the rich pushing this country into class warfare. The first place you need to look for that "nudge" is the White House and the folks the Obama administration has surrounded itself with.
I don't need Obama or the White House to tell me that executive compensation has gone up much faster than the average workers.

So is it the workers fault that from 1990 to 2005 executive pay rates went up 69 time faster that the average worker? (http://consumerist.com/2007/04/ceo-p...1995-2005.html)

Don't even try telling me that those executives are working 69 time harder than in 1990
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

We were a country built on laws. We have become a country built on men. In an asinine attempt to equalize all things, we have built into our system of check and balances a need to elevate some over others based on

a) race
b) gender
c) environmental or social circumstances

We are all "created equal." In that is the protection that I have the same opportunities placed in front of me as the person standing next to me. The next move is mine. I, you, or anyone else do not have a protected right to success. If I choose to take that ball and run with it, and the person next to me decides not to, why should I be treated differently in both my class rating, income, gender, race et al JUST because I choose a different path?

I know it seems this is going off on a tangent, but it really isnt. Because it all ties back into the IRS being used as a tool for wealth redistribution. And if you dont believe the IRS is being used as a punitive tool, go have a listen to Maxine Waters.
I agree, all should be treated equally.

Does Maxine Waters run the IRS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

And does that somehow make it right? You would be doing yourself a favor if you look into the history of the income tax in the US. When it started, who started it and how quickly it escalated as soon as the lawmakers saw how easy it was to take money from the citizens to spend as they see fit.
Like I said, we could argue that forever and never reach an agreement to whether it's right or wrong. I will point out that during some of the most prosperous time an US history, the income have was way more progressive than it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
However, we dont have a taxing problem in the US. The revenues into the treasury are significant and plenty. We have a spending problem. You dont solve a spending problem by raising taxes so that "base line budgeting" can continue. You dont call a 3% reduction in an automatic 7% increase in a budget, a cut. Thats a lie and is perpetrated by every level of our Government.
Taxes are part of the problem, due to the economic slowdown and cuts in taxes Federal revenue is down a couple of hundred billion. The rest of the 1.2 trillion deficit would come from spending increases.

But I agree, our government needs to spend less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
None of this even touches on the Debt or the Deficit. We are having to borrow money JUST for daily operations of the Federal Government. Only problem is we arent borrowing it, we are printing it. I wish I could run my personal finances like that. Our elected leaders have turned into aristocrats, and the sad part, not enough of the voting populace knows what an aristocrat is nor are they aware of how this country came about. It is, in real life, the idea of -those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it-. We are living in rare times.....
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

The same thing. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner. Our Constitution insures that sheep is well armed.
And what is happening on Wall Street is just the beginning of it.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 01:38 AM   #26
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
TUntil you realize that the fruit of a mans labor belongs only to that man, you will never see the class warfare rhetoric that you support in your words and in your deeds. The propaganda has twisted your mind.
You just keep telling yourself that. That may have been true 100 years ago, and may still be true for some. But for most of us the "fruits of our labor" end up belonging to our employer and they will pay us exactly the minimum amount that they can to get us to keep giving it to them.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 01:39 AM   #27
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
TUntil you realize that the fruit of a mans labor belongs only to that man, you will never see the class warfare rhetoric that you support in your words and in your deeds. The propaganda has twisted your mind.
You just keep telling yourself that. That may have been true 100 years ago, and may still be true for some. But for most of us the "fruits of our labor" end up belonging to our employer and they will pay us exactly the minimum amount that they can to get us to keep giving it to them.

It's not that I want class warfare, it's that I think it's coming whether we want it or not.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 03:26 AM   #28
snafu6
FTW
 
Join Date: 04-08-10
Location: Bloomfield Hills Detroit MI.
Posts: 248
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

The Art of War. Sun Tzu.
6th century BC

Required reading for CIA, Marine Corps Commandant's reading list, pretty much the bible for that kind of thing.

False flag, Goldman Sachs needs a breather the public demands something be done heads must roll

Hire some hipsters to rally around wall street in protest of the evil giants, put out some propaganda that the media wont cover the story, fan the flames a bit

Presto Americans get to have their revolution sitting in front of the tv every night with no effort involved

Couple of weeks of chaos for the evening news, promise of change we can believe in and the whole thing gets lost in the 24 hour news cycle

Wash rinse repeat
snafu6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 04:58 AM   #29
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Right, I should have used the phrase "people GET to keep what they earn" like you did, because that's oh so different.
Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two terms. "Letting" someone do something suggests one entity has more power and authority over another. "Getting" to do something suggests the power and authority are within you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/let

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/get

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
The IRS is the government, so why would anyone try to separate the two?
I'm actually not a big fan of using the tax code for the redistribution of wealth. I hate that there are credits that allow people to get back more than they paid. But I don't have a problem with a progressive tax that taxes those with more ability to pay at a higher rate.
Then your real issue is with the people that write the tax code, not the rich. Or it should be. The class warfare comes in when one entity tries to get one group of people motivated by flaunting the difference between the classes for no other reason than to suit their agenda.

The rich dont have an issue with the progressive tax code either. But since you agree that we have a spending problem, talking about raising taxes is a moot point since that wont solve our real problem. It will simply make those who feel the rich should be paying more, feel better. In the grand scheme of things, it wont change anything within the operation of the Federal Government. So the entire thing is a movement and is nothing but class warfare perpetuated by the Federal Government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Of course because I can't afford to buy stock I'll never be able to do that. Your message is clear, only wealthy people have the right to decide what other wealthy people should make. Us lowly surfs need to shut up and put our heads down and get back to work.
Thats not my fault, my neighbors fault, any of my friends fault. That power lies within you. You simply need the motivation and focus to achieve it.

BUT..... You are not being denied the ability to buy stock or get on a board of directors. There is no law that says Brewman can not buy stock or sit on a board of directors. If it is that important to you, save up the money until you can afford it. And essentially you are right, if you want to get ahead then put your head down and get back to work. You wont elevate yourself to any level of monetary wealth by bringing those with the wealth down, it doesnt work like that. Id love to have the sales and market presence of Masterpull and be able to quit my dayjob and focus on my own business full time. I could run around and put MP down to try to push sales my way, but in the long run I would simply be hurting myself. So I put my head down and trudge forward carrying my business and products on the quality and customer service that I personally demand from other companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I don't need Obama or the White House to tell me that executive compensation has gone up much faster than the average workers.
So what? Go get an executive job if you are that worried about it. If you dont want an executive job, then why are you worried about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So is it the workers fault that from 1990 to 2005 executive pay rates went up 69 time faster that the average worker? (http://consumerist.com/2007/04/ceo-p...1995-2005.html)
Again... So what? If thats not enough motivation for you to go get an executive job than I dont know what would do it. It appears you simply want to bring others down to make the majority "feel better" about themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Don't even try telling me that those executives are working 69 time harder than in 1990
I work harder than my union counterpart but I know my union counter is making about $10 more an hour. Can you figure out why I dont cry about it?

You are, perhaps without even being aware of it, propagating the class warfare in your attempt to suggest its coming from the rich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I agree, all should be treated equally.

Does Maxine Waters run the IRS?
Nope, but she thinks it should be used as a punitive entity and she can influence tax code. Connect the dots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Like I said, we could argue that forever and never reach an agreement to whether it's right or wrong. I will point out that during some of the most prosperous time an US history, the income have was way more progressive than it is now.
It wasnt because of the tax code that the country was prosperous. And again, our problem isnt a lack of tax. Its spending. We are taxed enough. Time to cut spending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Taxes are part of the problem, due to the economic slowdown and cuts in taxes Federal revenue is down a couple of hundred billion. The rest of the 1.2 trillion deficit would come from spending increases.

But I agree, our government needs to spend less.
So the US Government is seeing less revenues do to unemployment and the recession... And their answer is to raise taxes so that they may continue on as if the country isnt struggling? If you loose your job, do you cut back or retain your standard of living on your credit cards?

Yup.


And what is happening on Wall Street is just the beginning of it.[/QUOTE]
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 07:55 AM   #30
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
You just keep telling yourself that. That may have been true 100 years ago, and may still be true for some. But for most of us the "fruits of our labor" end up belonging to our employer and they will pay us exactly the minimum amount that they can to get us to keep giving it to them.
Strawman agrument but I will play along...

It is still true today. You and your employer are engaged in a voluntary agreement. You sell your time (labor) to him for an agreed upon price. You are free to divorce yourself from that agreement anytime you choose.

The employer has always wanted to get the most labor for the lowest price and the worker has always wanted the highest price for the least labor. They come to a mutually agreed upon point somewhere in the middle. There is no coercion by either party. That's a free market at work.

/strawman

This has nothing to do with the government taking any amount of that agreed upon price and using it for any purpose it sees fit. This is not voluntary, it is legalized plunder. It is theft.

Then there is taking more from some and using it to support others. This is progressive taxation, it is redistribution of wealth, it is a communist ideal, it is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx, and it is something that you clearly support.

If you want to support progressive taxation that is your right, but you should at least know the history of what you support and what results from it.

It enslaves people at both ends. The tax payer is enslaved to pay the government and the recipient is enslaved by being dependent on the govenment for their sustiance. It causes resentment between the two parties and it is used by politicians to buy votes and garner power. It keeps us divided and fighting with each other instead of fighting together to restore our liberty from the tyranny of the government.

You are being used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
It's not that I want class warfare, it's that I think it's coming whether we want it or not.
Obviously you DO want it because you are on here promoting it.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 09:46 AM   #31
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,937
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Default

wow, opie I don't recall ever reading many of your posts before, but I certainly will moving forward.

Strong argument and well said.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 10:15 AM   #32
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,073
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

I don't get it Bruce. I have a pretty good handle on your income level and we aren't a whole lot different. We're definitely in the tax paying 50%. I feel I am paying too much in taxes yet you seem to feel us wealthy people are not paying enough. And then in turn, you complain that you don't have money to invest in the stock market. Maybe if you pushed to pay less in taxes you could invest your own money as you see fit.

So, the same question that has been asked a lot on TV without a good answer bears asking here. At what income should a person start paying taxes? And, how much by percentage should that person pay? Should a person who makes more pay a higher percentage or should they pay the same percentage as a person with a lower income.

Is it not understood that a person with more discretionary cash puts more cash back into society? Yes, they save more but not necessarily by percentage.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 10:41 AM   #33
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Strawman agrument but I will play along...

It is still true today. You and your employer are engaged in a voluntary agreement. You sell your time (labor) to him for an agreed upon price. You are free to divorce yourself from that agreement anytime you choose.

The employer has always wanted to get the most labor for the lowest price and the worker has always wanted the highest price for the least labor. They come to a mutually agreed upon point somewhere in the middle. There is no coercion by either party. That's a free market at work.

/strawman

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post

Yes, but "free market" in this modern global era increasingly means that the wealthy that own most of the means of production are free to send jobs overseas and the American workers are free to either accept less for their labor or starve.
This has nothing to do with the government taking any amount of that agreed upon price and using it for any purpose it sees fit. This is not voluntary, it is legalized plunder. It is theft.

Then there is taking more from some and using it to support others. This is progressive taxation, it is redistribution of wealth, it is a communist ideal, it is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx, and it is something that you clearly support.

If you want to support progressive taxation that is your right, but you should at least know the history of what you support and what results from it.

It enslaves people at both ends. The tax payer is enslaved to pay the government and the recipient is enslaved by being dependent on the govenment for their sustiance. It causes resentment between the two parties and it is used by politicians to buy votes and garner power. It keeps us divided and fighting with each other instead of fighting together to restore our liberty from the tyranny of the government.
The article in the original post was about people protesting the increasing disparity of income between executives and other "Wall Street" type, and the average worker. It's all this talk of taxes and the government that is the strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
You are being used.
So are you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Obviously you DO want it because you are on here promoting it.
[/QUOTE]

No, I don't. I'm not promoting anything. I'm just telling you what I see happening. The growing division of income and wealth is not good for the long term future of this country. The capitalist system only works when a majority of the people think the system is working for them. Once the majority feel they are not receiving their fair share of the rewards from the system the revolution starts. The events reported in the OP are an indication that things are moving in that direction. My hope is that the people at the top realize it before it's too late.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 11:49 AM   #34
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
I don't get it Bruce. I have a pretty good handle on your income level and we aren't a whole lot different. We're definitely in the tax paying 50%. I feel I am paying too much in taxes yet you seem to feel us wealthy people are not paying enough. And then in turn, you complain that you don't have money to invest in the stock market. Maybe if you pushed to pay less in taxes you could invest your own money as you see fit.

So, the same question that has been asked a lot on TV without a good answer bears asking here. At what income should a person start paying taxes? And, how much by percentage should that person pay? Should a person who makes more pay a higher percentage or should they pay the same percentage as a person with a lower income.

Is it not understood that a person with more discretionary cash puts more cash back into society? Yes, they save more but not necessarily by percentage.
I should have said I don't have enough money to buy enough stock to get a vote. Of course I could save money in invest it in the stock market. But even if I but all I make into one company it would be insignificant compared to the total, and would not get me any say in anything.

But these discussions always get sidetracked.

My main 2 points are

#1 The disparity of wealth and income has been growing for most of the last several decades, and I think this is a bad thing for the future of this country.

#2 All the talk about taxes seems to have given many people the impression that taxes are high right now, when in reality they are among the lowest they've been for 100 years.

Do I wish my taxes were lower and that the government would spend our money more wisely? Of course I do. Who doesn't? But I also recognize that some of what the government does in necessarily and needs to be paid for somehow.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 11:51 AM   #35
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,432
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

In a nation where individuals are adding debt faster than savings, I am having a hard time feeling sorry for anyone. In the finance class I am taking, one girl (who makes mid 50's) was talking about how she can barely pay her bills. She is constantly buying new designer clothes and shoes and drives a brand new luxury car; while here I sit in my Wal-Mart jeans and my three year old F250. I am sure she is one of the poor getting poorer, while I am the rich getting richer (since we manage our budget and save).
People who are in executive positions usually work longer hours and have more education than the lower middle class. I hope to be an executive someday. I am setting myself up for success by working 75-90 hours per week, taking additional training, professional coaching, and classes. I grew up in a poor family who didnít even think about having me go to college. I guess I should have stayed in Highland, popped out a few babies, and complained about the people who have worked hard to succeed making too much.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 11:59 AM   #36
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
The article in the original post was about people protesting the increasing disparity of income between executives and other "Wall Street" type, and the average worker. It's all this talk of taxes and the government that is the strawman.


So are you.

No, I don't. I'm not promoting anything. I'm just telling you what I see happening. The growing division of income and wealth is not good for the long term future of this country. The capitalist system only works when a majority of the people think the system is working for them. Once the majority feel they are not receiving their fair share of the rewards from the system the revolution starts. The events reported in the OP are an indication that things are moving in that direction. My hope is that the people at the top realize it before it's too late.

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.[/QUOTE]

And the federal government is doing a fine job nudging folks towards the mindset that the disparity in income is because of the rich. No mention of personal responsibility in life choices. Nothing on the part of the government taking any blame for the state of society.

Where we are today has been in the making since T. Roosevelt and just about every president since. Illegal immigration, gay marriage, gun rights, the federal budget....... those issues wont be the death of our country. It is the lack of proper education in this country that is pushing us over the edge. To many have been taught that our foundation is flawed. That the laws of this country discriminate against minorities etc. That if you breath on a minority upwind you are a racist. Our downfall will be due to ignorance because everything about our actual history has been diluted to the point of being worthless. Go ask a middle or high school student about manifest destiny or the articles of confederation. Ask them how FDR was so successful in getting his agenda passed. Ask them what " with divine providence, we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" means.

Ignorance will be our demise and it will lay squarely at the feet of the board of education. A government agency.

Again, seems like a tangent...... but it is all intertwined and it has been manufactured so.

Sent from my phone.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 12:20 PM   #37
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,483
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
But I don't have a problem with a progressive tax that taxes those with more ability to pay at a higher rate.
Why?

Do people that are more successful use more governmental resources? That's rhetorical, you know, so don't answer. People that earn less use more of the government's resources.

So let me ask you this: as we continue to give those "less fortunate in the lottery of life" tax breaks and government aid, what impetus remains to drive people to better themselves and achieve a higher level of success?

In simple words, requiring people that earn more to pay more in tax is a penalty our government levies on success. Sure, people that make more certainly have more to give; why should the government elect itself to decide where my money goes (via higher tax rates)? Is the government so moral and just that it will direct more of my dollars to worthy organizations than my current charitable contributions?

I usually see your point clearly Bruce - but not here.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 12:25 PM   #38
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,432
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Why?

Do people that are more successful use more governmental resources? That's rhetorical, you know, so don't answer. People that earn less use more of the government's resources.

So let me ask you this: as we continue to give those "less fortunate in the lottery of life" tax breaks and government aid, what impetus remains to drive people to better themselves and achieve a higher level of success?

In simple words, requiring people that earn more to pay more in tax is a penalty our government levies on success. Sure, people that make more certainly have more to give; why should the government elect itself to decide where my money goes (via higher tax rates)? Is the government so moral and just that it will direct more of my dollars to worthy organizations than my current charitable contributions?

I usually see your point clearly Bruce - but not here.
I completely agree with you. I also call it forced charity.
I also think they need to reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes. I don't think the government is showing any responsibility since they are worse than most Americans when it comes to their income vs debt rates. Having a high debt rate impacts inflation which isnt good for any class of people.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 12:56 PM   #39
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,937
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
In a nation where individuals are adding debt faster than savings, I am having a hard time feeling sorry for anyone. In the finance class I am taking, one girl (who makes mid 50's) was talking about how she can barely pay her bills. She is constantly buying new designer clothes and shoes and drives a brand new luxury car; while here I sit in my Wal-Mart jeans and my three year old F250. I am sure she is one of the poor getting poorer, while I am the rich getting richer (since we manage our budget and save).
People who are in executive positions usually work longer hours and have more education than the lower middle class. I hope to be an executive someday. I am setting myself up for success by working 75-90 hours per week, taking additional training, professional coaching, and classes. I grew up in a poor family who didnít even think about having me go to college. I guess I should have stayed in Highland, popped out a few babies, and complained about the people who have worked hard to succeed making too much.
Do you know what she paid for her car in comparison to your F250? Are you taking into account the amount you are spending in fuel compared to her? What about insurance? cost of ownership?

I would argue that if you took the total cost of ownership into account, your comparison wouldn't hold water.

Of course instead of making assumptions about her you would have to actually know what she paid for her car, is she also living in a DINK situation like you are? Does she have kids? A mortgage or rent bill she is paying on her own?

I'm not trying to single you out, but Whiterhino and I just recently had a discussion about these kinds of things.

I'm living on one income, I have a house, a kid, cars, and normal expenses, I am not poor by definition, but I certainly don't have the extra cash that someone who makes less than I may if he doesn't have a kid, a long commute, etc.

Everyones definition of rich or poor is different, or having money and not having money. The only measure that can be taken into account in this conversation is what you make annually and what taxes you pay because of that.

What you have in your pocket every week is up to you, based on what you choose to drive, wear, eat, drink, etc. Someone who makes 50k may have more toys, go on more trips, etc. than someone who makes 100k, simply because of other circumstances you are failing to consider.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2011, 01:56 PM   #40
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,432
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
Do you know what she paid for her car in comparison to your F250? Are you taking into account the amount you are spending in fuel compared to her? What about insurance? cost of ownership?

I would argue that if you took the total cost of ownership into account, your comparison wouldn't hold water.

Of course instead of making assumptions about her you would have to actually know what she paid for her car, is she also living in a DINK situation like you are? Does she have kids? A mortgage or rent bill she is paying on her own?

I'm not trying to single you out, but Whiterhino and I just recently had a discussion about these kinds of things.

I'm living on one income, I have a house, a kid, cars, and normal expenses, I am not poor by definition, but I certainly don't have the extra cash that someone who makes less than I may if he doesn't have a kid, a long commute, etc.

Everyones definition of rich or poor is different, or having money and not having money. The only measure that can be taken into account in this conversation is what you make annually and what taxes you pay because of that.

What you have in your pocket every week is up to you, based on what you choose to drive, wear, eat, drink, etc. Someone who makes 50k may have more toys, go on more trips, etc. than someone who makes 100k, simply because of other circumstances you are failing to consider.
I know exactly what she makes, where she lives, how many kids she has, what she pays for her lease, and other various facts.
I also know that she was crying because she can't afford to make ends meet but doesnt understand how she can save any money when the items I listed are examples of "wants" and not "needs". When I start crying about how I can't put $500 bucks a month into savings (as recommended in our class) and have to put a percentage of my monthly costs on credit, then I would sell my F250 and drive a POS XJ like I did for the last four years.
I am a dink now but how many years did I live on one income? I bought my home on two incomes, dropped to only one income and still managed to squirrel money into savings monthly because I stopped leasing a new truck, stopped eating out, cut my landscaping service, cut my spending on clothes and services, and I tried to find areas where we could cut costs that were wants instead of needs.
I have put saving and cutting my spending into practice and guess what.. it works.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.81306 seconds with 82 queries