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!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 11th, 2011, 12:06 PM   #121
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Yes, poorly done on my part. I did way over simplify it and had wrong numbers. But the point is the same.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.

Last edited by whiterhino; October 11th, 2011 at 12:42 PM.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 12:58 PM   #122
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Yes, poorly done on my part. I did way over simplify it and had wrong numbers. But the point is the same.
Sorry, no. Your basic understanding of how tax brackets work is wrong. Go back and re-read the page you linked to. It's explains it pretty well.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 01:12 PM   #123
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

You are right, the numbers I quoted don't show the example I intended. They were wrong. However, the point, albiet small does exist. Using basically the same numbers and plugging them into the calculator give this.

A person making $34,499 pays $4,750 in taxes. If his income goes up $2 to $35,501, he now pays $4,875 or an increase of $125. Therefore, his $2 increase cost him $123 loss. Using my example of $36,000, he would pay $5,125, so his $1,501 bonus would net him an additional $1,126. My bad.

Now to the point, you are correct, it would be very rare and the numbers would have to fall perfectly for him to actually lose money by making more.

Bruce +1
Jim 0
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 02:33 PM   #124
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
You are right, the numbers I quoted don't show the example I intended. They were wrong. However, the point, albiet small does exist. Using basically the same numbers and plugging them into the calculator give this.

A person making $34,499 pays $4,750 in taxes. If his income goes up $2 to $35,501, he now pays $4,875 or an increase of $125. Therefore, his $2 increase cost him $123 loss. Using my example of $36,000, he would pay $5,125, so his $1,501 bonus would net him an additional $1,126. My bad.

Now to the point, you are correct, it would be very rare and the numbers would have to fall perfectly for him to actually lose money by making more.

Bruce +1
Jim 0
34,499+2=35,501 ?

I want a 2 dollar raise like that.

Give it up while you're behind.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 02:55 PM   #125
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
34,499+2=35,501 ?

I want a 2 dollar raise like that.

Give it up while you're behind.
WTF. My day is not going good.

I would delete all my posts to hide my stupidity but unfortunately you quoted them.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 03:13 PM   #126
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,546
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
WTF. My day is not going good.

I would delete all my posts to hide my stupidity but unfortunately you quoted them.
I think what Brewman is trying to point out is that your understanding of how tax brackets work is incorrect and no matter how you figure it out, you're wrong.

When a person moves up into a new tax bracket, only the portion of their income above the threshold is taxed at the higher rate.

So if person A earns $34,000 and is in the 15% bracket (which in this exercise cuts off at $34,999), their annual tax burden is $5,100.

If he gets a $2,000 raise and earns $36,000, $34,999 is taxed at 15% and the remaining $1,001 is taxed at 25% ($5,249.85 and $250.25 respectively) for a total tax burden of $5,500.10. His raise was $2,000 and his increased tax burden was $400.10. $2,000 > $400.10
WSU JK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 03:19 PM   #127
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

I got it. LOL
It's something that I had completely forgotten about and was dead wrong. There, I said it. Are we good?
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 03:20 PM   #128
deerebowtie
Unchained
 
deerebowtie's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-04-09
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,735
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

but then you're missing out on the nicer part of making more - being able to afford things to use as write offs ;)
deerebowtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2011, 12:20 AM   #129
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
SO then you need to define rich. This exemplifies one of my points that the class definitions are loose, just like district lines.
The stats I've seen say that a a group those in the top 5% ($160,000 in 2008) of income and above have seen their share of the total income rise, while those 10% ($113,800) and down have dropped. 5% to 10% stayed about the same. So when I say the rich got richer I'm talking about those with income in the top 5% or above. The higher you go the better they've done compared to the whole. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
War on poverty is self explanatory.
I assume by that you mean it to include any program that helps the poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

Then how is anything OT in regards to talking about one issue?
I guess it isn't. But I'll just start ignoring what doesn't pertain to my point
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

So you would be OK, and Im not being a smart ass, with the folks that actually carry the majority of the income tax burden packing up and leaving the US due to changes in tax law that requires them to pay even more while 47% still gets to pay at least $0 in Federal income tax?
Yep. One thing I've learned over the years is that no one in indispensable. They'll have to leave their job, so their income will stay right here, being made by someone else, who will pay the taxes on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

I think this is where you'll find the biggest argument from me. Its not anyone elses responsibility to elevate anyone else. Nor should anyone be pressured or coerced into doing so. The want and desire to create a better life needs to come from inside each of us. The fruits of that struggle are much sweeter if you know you did it because of your hard work, not because someone artificially leveled the playing field. We hear talk that the rich are doing their best to keep the poor, poor..... I say that is hogwash. IMO, the biggest hurdle to the lower and middle class moving up is regulation via Government agencies.
And this is where I'm not doing a very good job of making myself understood. I agree with you. Everyone should be responsible for themselves and no one else. It's human nature to look out for your own best interests, and that's the way it should be. If the current system is working for you and you're making piles of money it's in your long term best interest to keep the system going. If the current system is not working for you and you are going broke, for whatever reason, it's in you best interest to change the system. That's what those folks protesting on Wall Street are trying to do. The way to keep the system that benefits you is to convince a majority of the people that it benefits them as well. This may mean that you have to take less for yourself now and share more of it those in a lessor position in exchange for keeping a system that will allow you to continue to make large sums of money well into the future.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2011, 04:19 AM   #130
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
The stats I've seen say that a a group those in the top 5% ($160,000 in 2008) of income and above have seen their share of the total income rise, while those 10% ($113,800) and down have dropped. 5% to 10% stayed about the same. So when I say the rich got richer I'm talking about those with income in the top 5% or above. The higher you go the better they've done compared to the whole. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data
So is $160,000 your line between rich and middle class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I assume by that you mean it to include any program that helps the poor.
Any Government run program, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I guess it isn't. But I'll just start ignoring what doesn't pertain to my point
IMO you will then have an unbalanced conversation. Your point has been decades in the making and it involves far more than just the top income levels increasing their income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yep. One thing I've learned over the years is that no one in indispensable. They'll have to leave their job, so their income will stay right here, being made by someone else, who will pay the taxes on it.
You seem to be neglecting to accept the fact that the majority of high wage earners provide jobs as well. Read business owners. We dont have a country of entrepreneurs anymore because our Government has created a class of citizens willing to sit back and collect benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
And this is where I'm not doing a very good job of making myself understood. I agree with you. Everyone should be responsible for themselves and no one else. It's human nature to look out for your own best interests, and that's the way it should be. If the current system is working for you and you're making piles of money it's in your long term best interest to keep the system going. If the current system is not working for you and you are going broke, for whatever reason, it's in you best interest to change the system. That's what those folks protesting on Wall Street are trying to do. The way to keep the system that benefits you is to convince a majority of the people that it benefits them as well. This may mean that you have to take less for yourself now and share more of it those in a lessor position in exchange for keeping a system that will allow you to continue to make large sums of money well into the future.
But that system is not exclusive to me. Every single person marching in the protest has the same opportunities in front of them as I do. The difference is I am choosing to exercise my options and take life by the horns. Not protest that the system is unfair and lobby Government to change the system. Hell, I dont even have half the education most of the protestors do and I manage to keep my real job, run a side business and support my family which allows my wife to stay home with the kids. I find it difficult to accept that the "system" is flawed. Perhaps there in lies one of the differences... I choose to use my time to be productive.

I dont want to make it sound like Im rolling in money, cause Im not. I land squarely in the lower middle class every year

This.....

Quote:
If the current system is not working for you and you are going broke, for whatever reason, it's in you best interest to change the system.
IMO, it would be in your best interest to stop going broke, not change the system. The system doesn't care who you are, your sex or race, religion etc. When I say system, I am referring to the framework that is laid out that allows anyone to become a master of their own future.

Coming from a background where I was stupid in my younger days in regards to finances, education and business... I learned what works for me and what doesn't. It never entered my mind to change the system. What I had to do was modify my behaviors because my behaviors were the detriment to my success, not the system.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2011, 08:09 AM   #131
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
So is $160,000 your line between rich and middle class?
You could draw that line just about anywhere you want and justify it. In this narrow instance, yes. But I really don't care to debate it. Draw the line where ever you want and you will find that in general those above it have done better over the past few decades that those below it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Any Government run program, yes.
OK. Then it's a "war" that has gone on since we moved out of caves and will continue until the earth crashed into the sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

IMO you will then have an unbalanced conversation. Your point has been decades in the making and it involves far more than just the top income levels increasing their income.
OK. I prefer the term "focused".
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

You seem to be neglecting to accept the fact that the majority of high wage earners provide jobs as well. Read business owners. We dont have a country of entrepreneurs anymore because our Government has created a class of citizens willing to sit back and collect benefits.
Put down your copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and realize that in the real world there are more than a handful of people in this country that can run businesses. Again, no one is indispensable,
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

But that system is not exclusive to me. Every single person marching in the protest has the same opportunities in front of them as I do. The difference is I am choosing to exercise my options and take life by the horns. Not protest that the system is unfair and lobby Government to change the system. Hell, I dont even have half the education most of the protestors do and I manage to keep my real job, run a side business and support my family which allows my wife to stay home with the kids. I find it difficult to accept that the "system" is flawed. Perhaps there in lies one of the differences... I choose to use my time to be productive.

I dont want to make it sound like Im rolling in money, cause Im not. I land squarely in the lower middle class every year

This.....



IMO, it would be in your best interest to stop going broke, not change the system. The system doesn't care who you are, your sex or race, religion etc. When I say system, I am referring to the framework that is laid out that allows anyone to become a master of their own future.

Coming from a background where I was stupid in my younger days in regards to finances, education and business... I learned what works for me and what doesn't. It never entered my mind to change the system. What I had to do was modify my behaviors because my behaviors were the detriment to my success, not the system.
I agree. Those protesting don't. I hope it gives you comfort when the shooting starts.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2011, 04:23 PM   #132
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
You could draw that line just about anywhere you want and justify it. In this narrow instance, yes. But I really don't care to debate it. Draw the line where ever you want and you will find that in general those above it have done better over the past few decades that those below it.
OK... I want to draw the line at $60,000. Anyone making above that is rich and must be taxed at a higher rate to make everything fair.

It goes without saying that those with money tend to do better and make more of it. It should be an inspiration for others to want to do the same. But in our " everything must be fair with no risk" society, we are being told we can have the fruits without having to expend the energy to harvest the fruit. Problem is someone has to harvest the fruit in order to spread it around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
OK. Then it's a "war" that has gone on since we moved out of caves and will continue until the earth crashed into the sun.
Heard a stat today that there are more poor as a percentage of population now then there was back in the 50's and 60's. Some war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
OK. I prefer the term "focused".
Its impossible to focus on a multi faceted issue by addressing only one of the factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Put down your copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and realize that in the real world there are more than a handful of people in this country that can run businesses. Again, no one is indispensable,
Havent read Atlas Shrugged, but thanks for mentioning it. Ive got a road trip coming up and I need something to listen to.

I never said only a few people can run a business.... But there is a distinct difference between running a business and owning a business. Everything about Kris' Splicing ends with me. Succeed, fail, liability, trust in the quality of my products... Im it. If I had an employee, they would have none of these issues to worry about. Punch in, do their work, punch out and go home. But since you think anyone can do it, why arent more people actually doing it? I know why, or have an opinion anyway, but curious what your thoughts are on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I agree. Those protesting don't. I hope it gives you comfort when the shooting starts.
So the protestors are essentially barking up the wrong tree, you know it and agree, but choose to support the movement. That doesnt make a lick of sense.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 08:29 AM   #133
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
OK... I want to draw the line at $60,000. Anyone making above that is rich and must be taxed at a higher rate to make everything fair.
OK. Like i said, it's not something worth debating, because where you draw the line for "rich" vs. "not rich" is completely arbitrary. If someone thinks $60,000 is rich that's fine, I don't care. And we already have a graduated tax rate. They have already decided that income over certain thresholds should be taxed at a higher rate than income below. What your suggesting is nothing new, just a change to existing tax brackets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
It goes without saying that those with money tend to do better and make more of it. It should be an inspiration for others to want to do the same. But in our " everything must be fair with no risk" society, we are being told we can have the fruits without having to expend the energy to harvest the fruit. Problem is someone has to harvest the fruit in order to spread it around.
It's not just that they're doing better, it's the degree to which they're doing better. In 1980 the top 1% earned about 8.5% of the total income in this country. Most people seemed OK with that. By 2008 it was around 20%. People started to become unhappy about that. That latest number which I heard just yesterday put it at around 24% and people are protesting. It keeps going up. How much higher can it get and what will happen then? What happens when it gets to 50%?, to 75%? to 90%? What would happen if 1% got 99% of income? How long do you think a system like that would last?

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Heard a stat today that there are more poor as a percentage of population now then there was back in the 50's and 60's. Some war.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The low to middle is sliding into poor. The war you like to keep referring to is being lost.
BTW the top tax rate in the 50's and 60's was somewhere between 70 and 92%!

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Its impossible to focus on a multi faceted issue by addressing only one of the factors.
So we should only have one thread here where we talk about life, the universe and everything?
I find it easier to focus on one facet of a multifaceted issue than try to figure out the entire issue at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Havent read Atlas Shrugged, but thanks for mentioning it. Ive got a road trip coming up and I need something to listen to.
You'll love it, but it better be a really long road trip, it's over 1000 pages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
I never said only a few people can run a business.... But there is a distinct difference between running a business and owning a business. Everything about Kris' Splicing ends with me. Succeed, fail, liability, trust in the quality of my products... Im it. If I had an employee, they would have none of these issues to worry about. Punch in, do their work, punch out and go home. But since you think anyone can do it, why arent more people actually doing it? I know why, or have an opinion anyway, but curious what your thoughts are on it.
And I never said anyone could do it. I couldn't. Well, maybe I could if I had to but I don't want to. I tried managing restaurants many years ago and hated it and wasn't very good at it. So I went and found something else I like doing better and am pretty good at (design).

I agree that there is a difference between owning and running a business. Most of the anger seems to be directing at those running publicly owned businesses, not those owning privately held businesses.

I think it's great that you started your own business and hope you are very successful, and will keep you in mind when it's time to replace my winch line.

Why do I think more people don't do it? I'm sure there a million reasons. Maybe they're happy to work for someone else, too lazy, too stupid, don't want the hassles, don't have the desire, don't have the skills... the list is endless. My reason would be some combination of the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
So the protestors are essentially barking up the wrong tree, you know it and agree, but choose to support the movement. That doesnt make a lick of sense.
Yes, but when your tree is cut down and chopped up and burnt for firewood to keep warm how much comfort will you get from the knowledge that it was the "wrong tree"?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 09:28 AM   #134
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Small comment to the question about why more people don't go into business for themselves. IMO, a large part of it is fear. People are afraid to step out on their own and take a risk. They are afraid to stand up and say "it's me, I am responsible for the mistakes". I am guilty of it myself. Years ago I had 2 offers. 1 with an established company. The other was a small business owner who needed help and was willing to give me a partnership because he couldn't handle the company at the level he had grown it to. I took the safe, secure, established job. Got frustrated and quit 2 years later. I've always wondered "what if".

This is the reason I give so much credit and latitude to a business owner. They took the risk. They mortgaged their house to make it happen. They worked a full time job and worked at night to build their business. They gave up vacations, holidays, weekends and in many cases family to build a better life for themselves. On the other hand, most of us, including me chicken out when push comes to shove.

Since then, I started my own sideline business 15 years ago. I grew it to the point where I couldn't keep up with business and keep my full time job. So, I had a decision to make. I backed off on my sideline business and poured myself back into my regular career. Now I'm to the point of looking at selling off my business. Could I have made it work? Yes. But in honesty, it takes a level of risk that I wasn't willing to take at my age. So, once again, I respect those who took the risk.

Bruce, you make a good point that most people seem to be frustrated with the public salaries more than the private. I would agree with you. If a CEO is making tens of millions while they are forcing paycuts on the employees, that is not right. But if it is a private owner, I feel differently.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 09:38 AM   #135
IFS SUCKS
I like trees
 
IFS SUCKS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-07
Location: Lansing,MI
Posts: 5,796
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

IFS SUCKS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 04:46 PM   #136
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
OK. Like i said, it's not something worth debating, because where you draw the line for "rich" vs. "not rich" is completely arbitrary. If someone thinks $60,000 is rich that's fine, I don't care. And we already have a graduated tax rate. They have already decided that income over certain thresholds should be taxed at a higher rate than income below. What your suggesting is nothing new, just a change to existing tax brackets.
You keep saying it doesnt matter, but it does. Because where that line falls will be used as a weapon to further class warfare. And the current suggestion is to raise taxes on the wealthy.. Well, whats wealthy? The general consensus among our leaders is either $200 or $250 per year. While I agree thats a boatload of money, I arrive at the conclusion based on my current income level. That may not be but pocket change to someone else. I am fine with a graduated, progressive tax structure. I would prefer something like a consumption/flat/national sales tax, but I am fine with the current structure. I would like to see it simplified but thats another discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
It's not just that they're doing better, it's the degree to which they're doing better. In 1980 the top 1% earned about 8.5% of the total income in this country. Most people seemed OK with that. By 2008 it was around 20%. People started to become unhappy about that. That latest number which I heard just yesterday put it at around 24% and people are protesting. It keeps going up. How much higher can it get and what will happen then? What happens when it gets to 50%?, to 75%? to 90%? What would happen if 1% got 99% of income? How long do you think a system like that would last?
It shouldnt matter at what degree they are doing better, because we should all be treated equally. Even though under just about any tax structure, the rich will pay a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than the poor, they will still carry the majority of the tax load that ends up in the coffers of the Fed. At least with a simplified tax structure, it will be more difficult for anyone to get out of paying whatever the rate is set at.

The income disparity will never get to those levels, ever. It is feasibly impossible for 1% of the population to earn 99% of the income. Id wager that even the 24% wont last long. It may go up a bit more, but it will eventually tank and even off. Things do that, they swing. Everything swings and we have to stop reacting to the extremes on either side and plan for them in our daily lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The low to middle is sliding into poor. The war you like to keep referring to is being lost.
BTW the top tax rate in the 50's and 60's was somewhere between 70 and 92%!
I am aware of past top tax brackets... And I think they were criminal. But in all reality, no one has ever paid anywhere near the top rate because of deductions and exemptions. It would probably surprise you to learn how quickly the income tax in the US went from 1% to 90%, and why it went up so quickly.

The war is being lost and the middle class is sliding down because its easier to live off the Government. Ill bet you that the majority of people that fall on hard times and eventually stay down blame someone else for their problems. The people that get back up and keep going dont blame anyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So we should only have one thread here where we talk about life, the universe and everything?
I find it easier to focus on one facet of a multifaceted issue than try to figure out the entire issue at once.
Who said that?

I was thinking about this today and I think you are right. Ive gone way OT. First we need to figure out whos rich and what is a fair rate to tax them at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
You'll love it, but it better be a really long road trip, it's over 1000 pages.
Ive heard its a long read, but I cant sit long enough to read a book so I listen to them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
And I never said anyone could do it. I couldn't. Well, maybe I could if I had to but I don't want to. I tried managing restaurants many years ago and hated it and wasn't very good at it. So I went and found something else I like doing better and am pretty good at (design).
Than its not an accurate guess to assume if one leaves, someone else will step up and take the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I agree that there is a difference between owning and running a business. Most of the anger seems to be directing at those running publicly owned businesses, not those owning privately held businesses.
You mean business that falls under the most amount of Government regulation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I think it's great that you started your own business and hope you are very successful, and will keep you in mind when it's time to replace my winch line.
Thanks! I thrive on serving MI residents as much as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Why do I think more people don't do it? I'm sure there a million reasons. Maybe they're happy to work for someone else, too lazy, too stupid, don't want the hassles, don't have the desire, don't have the skills... the list is endless. My reason would be some combination of the above.
You wouldnt believe the myriad of regulations one needs to jump through to start their own business. Fortunately for me I dont have a storefront, parking, employees etc. I believe alot of folks learn of this and turn around. But yeah... most of your points are right on which brings me to this... If the protestors think they can do it better, rather than expending their energy trying to change the system, use it to get rich like the folks they are protesting against did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, but when your tree is cut down and chopped up and burnt for firewood to keep warm how much comfort will you get from the knowledge that it was the "wrong tree"?
It would be shortsighted of me to cut my own tree down, wouldnt it? However, Government is on my doorstep telling me I have to cut it down because my neighbor needs firewood.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2011, 08:11 PM   #137
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,376
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
You keep saying it doesnt matter, but it does. Because where that line falls will be used as a weapon to further class warfare. And the current suggestion is to raise taxes on the wealthy.. Well, whats wealthy? The general consensus among our leaders is either $200 or $250 per year. While I agree thats a boatload of money, I arrive at the conclusion based on my current income level. That may not be but pocket change to someone else. I am fine with a graduated, progressive tax structure. I would prefer something like a consumption/flat/national sales tax, but I am fine with the current structure. I would like to see it simplified but thats another discussion.
I understand exactly what you mean by using it as a weapon. You already tried that once. I refuse to give you that weapon. If it matters so much to you then you decide what is "wealthy". I would not be opposed to raising everyone's taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
It shouldnt matter at what degree they are doing better, because we should all be treated equally. Even though under just about any tax structure, the rich will pay a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than the poor, they will still carry the majority of the tax load that ends up in the coffers of the Fed. At least with a simplified tax structure, it will be more difficult for anyone to get out of paying whatever the rate is set at.
This does matter to those folks sitting in that park in New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post

The income disparity will never get to those levels, ever. It is feasibly impossible for 1% of the population to earn 99% of the income. Id wager that even the 24% wont last long. It may go up a bit more, but it will eventually tank and even off. Things do that, they swing. Everything swings and we have to stop reacting to the extremes on either side and plan for them in our daily lives.
I would hope it never gets that high, but how high is too high?
Absolutely everything swings back and forth. And the further it swings one way, the further it going the other way. All I'm trying to do it get people to realize just how far it's gone from center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
I am aware of past top tax brackets... And I think they were criminal. But in all reality, no one has ever paid anywhere near the top rate because of deductions and exemptions. It would probably surprise you to learn how quickly the income tax in the US went from 1% to 90%, and why it went up so quickly.
Yes, I was surprised to see how fast the income tax rate went up after they started. I don't know the exact reasons. Wars and the depression seemed to have something to do with it but I'm sure there was more to it than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
The war is being lost and the middle class is sliding down because its easier to live off the Government. Ill bet you that the majority of people that fall on hard times and eventually stay down blame someone else for their problems. The people that get back up and keep going dont blame anyone.
I'm sure it happens, but I doubt that there are large numbers of people choosing poverty and the government dole over a middle class lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Who said that?

I was thinking about this today and I think you are right. Ive gone way OT. First we need to figure out whos rich and what is a fair rate to tax them at.
Nobody said it. I was pulling out the slippery slope argument.

I'd rather figure out how much money the government needs to provide the essential services and then find a fair rate to tax people at to raise that much money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Than its not an accurate guess to assume if one leaves, someone else will step up and take the job.
There a lot of space between anybody and nobody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post



You mean business that falls under the most amount of Government regulation?
OK, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
You wouldnt believe the myriad of regulations one needs to jump through to start their own business. Fortunately for me I dont have a storefront, parking, employees etc. I believe alot of folks learn of this and turn around. But yeah... most of your points are right on which brings me to this... If the protestors think they can do it better, rather than expending their energy trying to change the system, use it to get rich like the folks they are protesting against did.
I hadn't even thought about that aspect of it, since I have no desire to start a business. I would be fully supportive of an effort to make it easier for someone to start a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
It would be shortsighted of me to cut my own tree down, wouldnt it? However, Government is on my doorstep telling me I have to cut it down because my neighbor needs firewood.
Yes, it would be stupid for you to cut down your own tree. But if you had an abundance of excess firewood laying around wouldn't it make sense to give some of it to your neighbor before they did cut down your tree to keep warm?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2011, 03:55 AM   #138
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I understand exactly what you mean by using it as a weapon. You already tried that once. I refuse to give you that weapon. If it matters so much to you then you decide what is "wealthy". I would not be opposed to raising everyone's taxes.

This does matter to those folks sitting in that park in New York.

I would hope it never gets that high, but how high is too high?
Absolutely everything swings back and forth. And the further it swings one way, the further it going the other way. All I'm trying to do it get people to realize just how far it's gone from center.

Yes, I was surprised to see how fast the income tax rate went up after they started. I don't know the exact reasons. Wars and the depression seemed to have something to do with it but I'm sure there was more to it than that.

I'm sure it happens, but I doubt that there are large numbers of people choosing poverty and the government dole over a middle class lifestyle.

Nobody said it. I was pulling out the slippery slope argument.

I'd rather figure out how much money the government needs to provide the essential services and then find a fair rate to tax people at to raise that much money.

There a lot of space between anybody and nobody.

OK, sure.

I hadn't even thought about that aspect of it, since I have no desire to start a business. I would be fully supportive of an effort to make it easier for someone to start a business.
I think you and I are on the same page generally, we are just arguing semantics. So Im going to leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, it would be stupid for you to cut down your own tree. But if you had an abundance of excess firewood laying around wouldn't it make sense to give some of it to your neighbor before they did cut down your tree to keep warm?
This, however is crucial to our country moving forward on a positive note. If my neighbor needs firewood, and I have some to give, I will give. Not because the Government tells me to but because its the right thing to do. Because it doesnt make sense for the Fed to use tax revenues to fund charity projects at a local level. We all need to make sure we are helping our local communities as we see fit. We all also must not be demonized if we choose to not help if we dont agree with the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. Im not going to delve to deep into this... But taking the charity responsibility away from the local level and centralizing it has invited greed and corruption. It doesnt make sense for the Fed to take a dollar from me and send $.25 back to my neighbor to buy firewood. I could give my neighbor that full $1.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2011, 05:19 AM   #139
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,582
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
This, however is crucial to our country moving forward on a positive note. If my neighbor needs firewood, and I have some to give, I will give. Not because the Government tells me to but because its the right thing to do. Because it doesnt make sense for the Fed to use tax revenues to fund charity projects at a local level. We all need to make sure we are helping our local communities as we see fit. We all also must not be demonized if we choose to not help if we dont agree with the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. Im not going to delve to deep into this... But taking the charity responsibility away from the local level and centralizing it has invited greed and corruption. It doesnt make sense for the Fed to take a dollar from me and send $.25 back to my neighbor to buy firewood. I could give my neighbor that full $1.
Here's the other thing with the firewood analogy. Sure, I have extra firewood. But what if my kids need my firewood? Shouldn't I be able to give it to them first? Or maybe the single mom who works as a receptionist at my place of work? What if I realize that my next door neighbor is a lazy bum who won't get off his ass to cut firewood? In turn, the guy across the street works really hard at cutting firewood but has a crappy chainsaw that keeps breaking. Maybe I would choose to give him my extra firewood. Why should the government have the power to take my extra firewood and give it to someone who really doesn't deserve it? There seems to be this opinion that those with money (the rich) stuff it under their pillow and hoard it. Many of them are huge charity donors.

The issue is having the choice to spend/give your money where YOU choose, not where the government chooses.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2011, 07:54 AM   #140
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,694
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IFS SUCKS View Post
love it

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Here's the other thing with the firewood analogy. Sure, I have extra firewood. But what if my kids need my firewood? Shouldn't I be able to give it to them first? Or maybe the single mom who works as a receptionist at my place of work? What if I realize that my next door neighbor is a lazy bum who won't get off his ass to cut firewood? In turn, the guy across the street works really hard at cutting firewood but has a crappy chainsaw that keeps breaking. Maybe I would choose to give him my extra firewood. Why should the government have the power to take my extra firewood and give it to someone who really doesn't deserve it? There seems to be this opinion that those with money (the rich) stuff it under their pillow and hoard it. Many of them are huge charity donors.

The issue is having the choice to spend/give your money where YOU choose, not where the government chooses.
great examples, I really like this.
kickstand is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

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 09:11 AM.


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.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.52492 seconds with 52 queries