RochesterRob
-
Posts
5,718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RochesterRob
-
-
There is so much wrong with Levi's. The product is crap compared to decades ago. Levi's has long lost its reputation as a company friendly to labor and American cotton producers. Levi's a few generations ago was not completely intertwined with the left like it is today. The message today seems to be if you are conservative don't buy our product. I don't. I have become exhausted on the whole culture Levi's stands for. I don't own any Levi's-like product anymore. I have clothes made from cotton but not styled like anything Levi's offers. Thanks but no thanks Levi's I can think for myself. I don't need to follow a herd of empty minded fools.
-
7 hours ago, The Governor said:
I agree with everything you said but there was actually a recent poll that said most people aren’t willing to pay more for environmentally friendly goods anymore which was a bit disturbing. I guess it really depends on what that product is.
I think that the CO2 is getting to you. Maybe CO if you are sitting in your car idling in your garage.
-
50 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Pretty good week for Biden in foreign affairs
He is holding a global climate conference that has many of the world leaders engaged, including China, Russia and others petro states
On Russia he has had some very notable success. Putin blinked at the Ukraine border, pulling back 100,000 troops that had been stationed there in a threatening manner. Typical dictator threat of war when things were unraveling at home. And Putin main political rival was allowed out of jail and sent to a hospital for treatment so that Putin could not slowly murder him. Protests are raging across Russia calling for the end for his kleptocratic rule. Seems, even the Trump model of corrupt government is under challenge in Russia
Thinking of the moment Chauvin was led away in handcuffs, wouldn't it be great to see Putin and Trump led away like that?
Who provides the drivel that you post?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
So many of you have truly lost your minds. Take a deep breath and stop lighting your hair on fire, day after day after day.
So that is where my gas for my lawnmower has been going. Do I now get sued for not placing it under lock and key?
-
9 hours ago, The Governor said:
Pat Robertson is right but the training also needs to be fixed. There’s also way too many cops. They aren’t needed. You could lay off 1/4 of the cops in this country and no one would notice. Pay the ones they keep.
We need to make the job attractive again and you do that with higher pay. Hire smarter people. We can’t just keep hiring anyone who’s ex-military. The police aren’t soldiers. We shouldn’t be making all of them jail/prison guards either. It only perpetuates the broken system that we’re about to dismantle and clean up.
We also don’t need the fire departments showing up to every single tiny incident and then requesting/demanding bullet proof vests because they’re showing up to every single incident. I don’t know who’s bright idea that was and when that started, but it needs to be fixed. No more toys! We’ll call you when there’s a fire!
“I think the problem is they’ve got to pay them more,” he said. “We don’t have the finest in the police department. They’re low-paid people… it’s not a question of training, it’s a question of hiring a more superior workforce, and we aren’t doing it.”
“But we need police, we need them, and we need to honor them, and I’m all for it, but at the same time, we cannot have a bunch of clowns running around who are underpaid and who really are not the best and brightest,” Robertson concluded.
Pay primarily comes from tax money. You willing to pay more taxes with it earmarked for law enforcement? Most agencies are not Hill Street Blues type districts so I would question your assertion on low pay. NYS troopers years ago were getting around 60 K and most likely today make more annually. The biggest problem today as said before here is criminals are showing an increasing willingness to make their own rules putting cops into difficult situations.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Nothing is going to happen with N Korea. Russia and China will not allow an act of aggression against N Korea over firing two missiles.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, The Governor said:
It’s already in the works. I’d bet everything that I have that there’s already legislation written and sitting on Nancy’s desk right now waiting to be introduced in the future.
Ha!!!
Not everyone agrees. The North American Meat Institute took issue with the study,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-it-time-to-put-a-tax-on-meat/#app
One of the extremely few ways for the liberal Democrats to screw things up for themselves politically is to introduce such a tax. The poor who are the bulwark of the Democrats will shoulder such a tax which they will ultimately rebel against. The only way to do it so rebellion is avoided is to introduce it in extremely small portions to the point where it will be almost invisible to the consumer which will have the effect of not reducing meat consumption. I would ask you what you have against logic, economics, and science when it comes to food production?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, The Governor said:
No one said you can’t ever have beef again. We’re going to “reduce” meat consumption, and how you do that is by taxing the hell out of it to change “bad behavior.”
I won’t even get into the strain on the HC system from the meat and dairy industries.
Who are you referring to when you say "We're?" Eating meat is a very primal function of humans and one that most people will not allow to be denied. Yes, I mean denied as the lower economic classes will be the primary victims of such a tax and it will amount to shifting to nothing relative to the expression "all or nothing." These same people tend to be supporters of the Democrats and/or liberals. No Draconian tax is coming anytime soon. To even get a 50 percent reduction would require going through three generations so the change would be very gradual.
-
4 minutes ago, The Governor said:
It’s the most impactful choice that 1 individual can make if they care about the environment. Not buying a Prius, or recycling, or anything else.
it’s not the 1700’s anymore. The “Swedes” will be fine.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyle-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change
The Swedes are not the same as the Swiss. Quite a number of nations prefer agricultural products to come from inside their borders to insure a degree of national security. Don't expect that to change. Even liberals eat meat so don't expect that to change. Many politicians believe in the mantra of do as I say and not as I do. Don't expect a government to eliminate meat production to placate a portion of the population that they consider minimally important. Don't eat meat as I don't care. Just for your information my diet is decidedly weighted in favor of grains including rice and vegetables but I do eat meat as well. You still ought to educate yourself as to the realities of food production as opposed to the philosophies of a political group. A potato has a much higher value on average per acre than beef. If potatoes were viable on a given acre of land that would the choice of production so economics does reward vegetable production over beef where possible. It just is not possible over a huge area of the Earth's landmass.
-
Just now, The Governor said:
Beef production needs about 28 times more land than the production of pork or chicken, and requires 11 times more water.
When you compare it to other food items such as rice, for example, and potatoes or wheat, beef needs 160 times more land, and releases 11 times more greenhouse gases.
You have missed the point. Potatoes and rice can not substitute in a vast vast majority of areas in place of cattle. Poultry outside of subsistence agriculture requires feed concentrates such as corn and soybeans. Cattle can be grazed in many areas where grain production is not possible or not viable. What if your government decides to placate a certain portion of the population by reducing pollutants directly caused by you so others can have their steaks and burgers? You think that cattle is taking land away from other agricultural commodities when in fact cattle is the only viable commodity in many locations on Earth. Look at the Swiss who greatly rely on cheese produced from cow milk.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, The Governor said:
Water is definitely the biggest issue. It takes something like 100 gallons just to get 1 hamburger on your plate.
Thats factoring in the water used to grow whatever the cow eats and drinks until it’s slaughtered, etc.
Im not a huge fan of Bernie but he’s actually right when he talks about environmental refugees. Yemen has been out of water for years. They will have to be relocated. It will also lead to more terrorism since they’re literally starving to death.
I don’t hate you because you’re fat.
You’re fat because I hate you. - Mean Girls
It takes several inches of loamy topsoil to grow vegetables and vegetables require water which a fair amount of the time comes from irrigation. Take a drive around WNY and look at the areas that lack several inches of loamy topsoil, lack the ability to irrigate vegetables, or have too short a growing season to grow vegetables. Growing vegetables in many areas requires insecticides to have a viable crop that does not wind up being a loss. These are problems that a lot of the world faces. Japan went to war during the 1930's and 1940's because it could not produce enough food which meant mostly vegetables. People can complain about digestive intolerances but wheat is the easiest mass produced crop to grow in the world. Large volume production of wheat and beef is simply a function of adaptability of those two commodities to most areas on Earth rather than a conspiracy perpetrated by rednecks.
-
10 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
I was complementing you that you worked very hard to get a spot that some rich kids parents just made a phone call and a donation to get them.
no problem allowing the wealthy to enjoy their creation. But tax the wealth transfer to the entitled recipients. It would disrupt the wealth distribution curve and force more people to earn their own wealth.
Having a rich parent will only take you a small step. You still have to pass the courses and very few professors will bend a final grade for maybe a tiny percentage of super elites. It's not unheard of for a rich kid to be sent packing after a very poor semester followed by academic probation followed by another poor semester. But the consequences are minor as daddy has a job waiting once the kid returns home. Being derailed for a guy like me would have cost me dearly. One reason I never played college football. Most of those guys had a life waiting back home if they screwed up. If I screwed up there would have been the need to hunt for a mediocre job plus pay back the student loans.
-
26 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
sure, but the wealthy had no barriers and may have even gotten in on less merit than you had based on your own efforts.of course a large number were “ordinary”, remember the elite are less than one in every hundred. In college 1 in every 20, at Cornell maybe 1 in every 10.
Not debating your story. Just feeling that generational wealth hand off seems like a very easy tax target. Nobody is less deserving to be wealthy than someone who just happened to have rich parents. Anything they do on their own, more power to them.
Not sure how to take your merit comment. I had to have a certain GPA and had to have recommendations as well as an application essay. I can assure you NO corners were cut in my admission to Cornell. What anybody else had to go through I can't speak to as I don't rightly know. I don't know what else to tell you. Some people are only motivated to do very hard effort if there is tremendous reward at the other end including generational wealth. The trouble is that those same people have built, are building, or will build a large part of the American economy.
-
13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
great points and congrats on running a business. It’s a risk that takes courage. You’re the exact type of risk taker I do not think should be taxed at all.
the general idea is ueber wealthy that pass on wealth to next generations seems like a much more equitable villain in the whole wealth distribution problem.
these wealthy elites that get easy access to Ivy League degrees and prestigious jobs early in their career without earning anything are arguably detrimental to societal progress. Add to that the fact they are independently wealthy from day 1.
The top 1% has 34 Trillion in net worth. And they are going to pass it to their heirs who did nothing to accumulate or advance that.
The world has not been, is not, nor will ever be fair. I consider myself fairly intelligent but am not especially well spoken or well written. It has cost me time and again. Having said that I was able to attend Cornell for two years after doing two years at a SUNY. For the most part I surely was not welcomed with open arms. I had to fight with instructors and fellow students and fellow student residents but I did exactly that and did not worry about feelings or bruised egos. My family most definitely had no wealth to get me in Cornell. As a matter of fact a girlfriend had a father who did a background check on me without her prior knowledge to destroy my relationship with his daughter. You can say good riddance if a daughter would not stand up to a father but I think that she needed time to grow but was not afforded it with me. While the wealthy certainly has access to schools such as Cornell I can tell you that a large number of students there came from ordinary backgrounds.
-
32 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
the trust is allegedly still worth 11 billion but it’s opaque.fine pick another one, DuPonts, Melons, Carnegie’s...
my point here is nepotistic wealth is the least equitable means to wealth. So tax the heck out of that.
Assuming that you are correct how widely divided is that 11 billion? I know somebody that knows a middle aged Delano. That family is to the point where nearly all members live a upper middle class existence albeit without working. Their kids will surely know work or a harsh alternative. Unfortunately, the goal of obscene wealth is what gets people to stay late at the office or lab that results in products or services that benefit a huge number of people often globally. I would guess very few would have Microsoft type goals in terms of work but the compensation of a blue collar worker for such a company. Some days I get annoyed that I was not blessed with advanced mathematical abilities that would take me extremely far in the corporate world but I have no desire to tear down those that have special talents and can exploit those talents for the most gain.
Dupont's, Melons, etc. if you tax them all the impact is extremely small when it takes many trillions to make the federal government go. Are you suggesting that there are trillions of dollars out there to be had in estate taxes annually to significantly take the burden off of the rest of us? Before you assume anything I run a small business and as of late struggled mightily in terms of finances but I do what I do because I have a fair amount of personal satisfaction involved.
-
45 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
I only point to the Rockefeller’s because they’ve resulted in 140 years of billionaires.
Waltons another perfectly great example.
as far as how to delineate, it’s a problem to be thought about, but if society really values equal opportunity, target the generational wealth transfers that have absolutely nothing to do with someone’s work ethic, abilities and merit to society.
just like Bill Gates capped his own children’s inheritance.
The top 1% own 30+ trillion of wealth. The bottom half own 2.5 trillion of wealth.
Curtail the ability to build defacto royalty. These are the same people that control and influence all the worst aspects of our political systems.
I don't understand the fixation with the Rockefeller's which might help me understand where you are coming from. That wealth has splintered extensively for over 100 years since JD lost his anti-trust suit. I don't think any one Rockefeller has had one billion dollars since the 1960's and perhaps before that. Old JD himself gave away quite a bit the last couple of decades that he lived.
Unfortunately, it is not within most people's abilities to build a General Motors Corporation, Ford, Microsoft, or Deere and Co of which those companies' products benefit a wide portion of the population. Taking Ford for example it took in part the efforts of HF II to build the company into what we see today. Imagine HF dying somewhat younger and the company not much more than a fledgling then taxing it out of existence. Then imagine a successor trying to round up capital only to be told it would be too risky in the event of premature death for the successor.
-
35 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Ok then exempt legitimate farms maybe.
My point is wealthy inheritances seems like a fair target in some shape or form to get tax revenues assuming they have to come from somewhere. People shouldn’t be dependent on their parents to make their own way in the world in my opinion and these families that structure generational family wealth also tend to be tied to corruption around the political elite.
Where do you draw the line at? 100 acres can be very little in terms of an overall family farm or everything that is needed if vertical integration is there. That the farm sells raw product retail or processes product to make it salable. Apples or apple juice? People in many facets of life are involved with other family members in order to make a living. Many businesses are well past the boot strap stage in terms of starting from scratch. My mother's uncle made a go of being a Chrysler-Pontiac dealer many years ago by constantly reinvesting in the business. The margins are so slim at times you can't count on that in the auto business today. Look at all the consolidation in the auto business. It happened in part because as an average person with average means can't walk into a bank to borrow a million dollars to buy or build a facility. If you try and tell a GM territory manager you want to be a Chevy dealer but need to operate out of a crap hole facility that would end the meeting and any hopes right then and there. Too much consolidation in business as it is which results in higher prices to the consumer never mind an unfriendly tax system which would accelerate that. By the way the Rockefeller's and Kennedy's are not big names in generational wealth anymore. Walton's (not John Boy or Jim Bob) Walmart are in that group among others.
-
51 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
I know the farm example is a common one, however fundamentally inheritance is an entitlement imo, particularly handing down a generation. It’s like a winning lottery ticket. It’s not earned. Therefore I see it as something that should be heavily taxed. And maybe even capped.
For most people, if they want to go start a business like a farm they need to figure how to obtain start up capital, not hope a rich uncle kicks the bucket.
It’s backward there are still Rockefeller billionaires running around 140 years later.Got to disagree with you on this. Many farms are multi-generation in terms of effort but often one generation for various reasons in terms of actual ownership. Failure to get a transfer done before death may be due to credit institution interest/liens that prevent a change in ownership status. The younger generation may have been too young to go on a deed or be signatories on a note when that time came. If the tax structure that I made as an example came to be in reality (which I fear which was why I made it as such) 400,000 dollars of collateral in the form of cash would not be enough equity to secure a loan on the 600,000 dollars needed to purchase the land in full from the estate. Sometimes the window never opens in terms of establishing a trust to preserve a business due to ongoing liens against the business as it needs money to operate. But if the window was ever there in terms of being debt free or debts not secured by business assets a trust should be set up so the business can continue after the death of a primary stake holder. As to rich uncles agriculture has pretty well moved on from that. A foreign entity is a primary player in agriculture where I live and there are other exotic financiers as well which I suspect includes drug money. An uncle who left his nephew a half million dollars is not going far in WNY when quite a bit of good farmland values at 5,000 dollars per acre or more and new tractors are well into six figures.
-
4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
So how many vegetables and dirt equals $600k? So you're going to force the potential sale of the land. What if the heirs want to maintain the asset?
And the basis has to do with the sale of the asset. Under current tax laws let's say mom and dad bought that vegetable farm and the basis is $100k. Mom and dad pass and the new basis to the heirs is $1m. The heirs can turn around and sell the asset free and clear of any cap gains or estate taxes. Not sure I agree with that.
I don't want to force a sale. A forced sale is something I fear with the changing political climate. I am allowing for it in my example to reflect what very well may happen. I am also saying that a drastically altered tax code may not allow for a basis for the purpose of a tax deduction.
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:Counties and municipalities already impose a wealth tax. Its called property taxes. The amount of tax is based on the "value" of your property as determined by local assessment of market value. As your primary residence generates no income or revenue the tax must be funded out of salary/wages and other sources of income like investments or interest income.
In the 100 acre example above the owner already pays a wealth tax to the county/municipality. As do all homeowners and landowners. Warren's idea is to extend this tax to the Federal level. The problem with property taxes is that after the initial purchase transaction there is a growing disconnect between the value of homes, which tend to rise faster than your ability to fund the tax which is based on your income that generally rises much slower.
I don't know about NJ but a county wealth tax in addition to property tax gets mentioned more and more frequently in current times. One more thing that I am not in favor of but something I fear that may take place in the future.
-
19 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Exactly. Much of the wealth transferred is illiquid. Estate taxes are due 9 months from date of death. Sometimes it takes longer than that to get a business set to sell let alone get it liquidated. Now there are ways to provide that liquidity but that often requires life insurance and there is no guarantee of insurability. This doesn't even bring the whole issue of what to do if the heirs want to keep the business.
They are also discussing doing away with the step up in cost basis. I'm not so sure I have a problem with that. As long as they do away with the estate tax completely.
I don't expect the estate tax to go anywhere and am bracing for it to take a bigger bite. I also expect that there will be far fewer deductions and allowances for basis. I expect the thresh hold for being taxable to be greatly lowered or eliminated. Not what I want once again but expecting our politicians to balance the budget on the backs of others.
Example : 100 acres prime vegetable ground in Western NY. Value of 10,000 dollars per acre. Gross value 1,000,000 dollars. No allowance for basis so 1,000,000 dollars is the taxable amount. For easy figuring lets say the federal and state tax rates have moved to 30 percent each of the gross amount which is not outside the realm of reason given who is running the show in DC and Albany. The Feds get 300,000 and the state gets 300,000 dollars. This is without counties imposing an income or wealth tax which there has been talk of. 600,000 paid in taxes leaving 400,000 dollars to disperse.
-
13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
We are all well aware that Elizabeth Warren and others have been pushing for this Tax on Wealth for some time now. Whether you agree with the concept that the top 1% of the top 1% need to pay more this is the dumbest idea ever and will likely never see the light of day. It just proves how out of touch ALL politicians are. Here are the challenges.
1. This is essentially the same as filing an Estate Tax Return. These often take years to sort out and locate and value all the assets. And this law will require this to be done EVERY YEAR
2. Even if they were able to place an accurate accounting value of the wealth a $2b estate would pay $30m in taxes. 2% on the first billion and and 1% on the second billion. So there could be a huge liquidity issue to pay the tax. Most billionaire's wealth is in illiquid assets such as real estate and business entities.
3. Billionaires are usually smart and have teams of advisors that can help them avoid this. Mainly hold the assets inside foreign entities. How does that help the US? If anything we need to bring foreign held assets back on shore so the income they produce can be properly taxed.
I always find it interesting that politicians (left/right/center) always talk about ways to raise additional revenue but almost NEVER discuss ways to cut spending.
So let the wah, wah, wah..poor billionaires replies come. This is not my point. It's that it's an impossible program to implement and maintain so it's a total waste of time. The fact that politicians such as Warren think it makes sense and is doable is laughable.
At this point in time the proposed bar is set quite high but it will drift down in my opinion. As the middle class is further depleted it would not surprise me if it reaches down to under 100,000 dollars per household. That is what it will take to maintain the them versus us attitude by the liberals as the number of working poor increases.
-
29 minutes ago, frostbitmic said:
I read something a week or so ago, then forgot where I read it, but the taxation was going to be 13%. 13% of what price I have no idea. Out of that, 9% was going to the state and 4% to the county where purchased.
People would also be allowed to grow 6 plants, for personal consumption of course. It also said that it was likely to take a year+ before you see dispensaries opening as they have to create licensing et al...
If they start at 13 percent I am very skeptical that they will stay there. A gallon of gasoline over a generation ago had far less taxes on it than today. I don't see the state, county or anybody else locking themselves in at one percentage rate in perpetuity. The black market will become invisible to a fair portion of the population but will exist nonetheless. Start going to 20, 25, or more percent that will allow the black market to be more competitive. And with MJ being legal a fair number of the black market's headaches will go away. People joke about it being sold at Bills home games and it will be sold both by the stadium and by private individuals. Will the state and county send out "revenuer's" to collect the tax?
-
36 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
In Washington state where it has been legal for 9 years the price has gone down and the quality has gone up. I have zero desire to buy black market weed. Why bother? Within 3 miles of my house there are 4 stores and they have great selections.
If NY does it like Washington did, you're gonna like it.
It's all about the taxes. It was around 15 years ago that 60 Minutes did a story about the resurgence of moonshine. Moonshine, you say? Why? The cost to the end user was less because liquor store alcohol was priced much higher due to tax. I'd be interested in knowing how much tax is on Washington MJ? Preliminary estimates are when MJ gets going in NY that the state taxes may add 25 percent or more to the purchase price. Then there are the opportunists such as the mayor of Rochester, NY who wants to levy her own tax to create social programs designed to keep her in office. I don't know Washington state's finances but NYS was in a poor situation before Cuomo ran the ship on the rocks with his COVID shutdown. Somebody is making up for the shortfall and it will not be Cuomo's limousine millionaire buddies.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ALF said:
I would think when it's legal to grow your own is the cheapest way to go.
Very few people grow their own vegetables so expect the same to hold true for MJ. Also, if you don't live in the best neighborhood then you have to worry about protecting your crop from others. Most people will just buy it then consume it in a matter of days to bypass problems.
"Don't buy our stuff." - Levi's
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I took a marketing class while at college many years ago. A huge, huge amount of effort goes into marketing denim. Denim made clothes was one of the earliest industries to receive product placement treatment in movies and television.