leh-nerd skin-erd

thanks for your thoughts. I'm a blue collar kid who has never run in the circles you have apparently run in, but i've danced on the fringes with some people who have some money. not crazy money, likely, but the $2m-$10m net asset base. At the same time, i've taken the lessons i was taught by my very hard working parents and tried to go just a little bit farther than they did (my job is to help my kids reach just a bit farther than i did, and so on). Your position is admirable. Given your education, it's probably safe to assume you're a pretty intelligent guy. My issue still comes back to the notion of what constitutes 'fair share' when dealing with a government that consumes like a pig at the trough 24x7x365. I'd gladly pay my fair share of the tax rate if equity in the system was even on the horizon. The way I see it, it's like working hard to carve out your little slice of the world just to give a large part of your money away to help good old Uncle Joe, only to find out Uncle Joe likes the ponies a bit too much, and on the way to the track he swings by the local bar and buys drinks for everyone before hitting the blackjack table. Additionally---your opinion aside, I'd bet there are contemporaries of yours (maybe your father-in-law, maybe not) who feel differently. In a perfect yet admittedly far-fetched world, the government would not be demanding the vig on your life's work day-in, day out, but certainly would let sensible, kind-hearted people like you gift your money on a scale you felt appropriate. Instead, they seize it, blow it to some large degree, and try and convince us all it's about fair share. And, frankly, it sure seems to catch up a lot of small to moderate sized familes, and I simply don't believe that's a coincidence. In Poz We Trust! Group: Members Posts: 15,036 Joined: 12-January 07 Member No.: 8,989 ############ QUOTE (timmo1805 @ Jun 9 2010, 11:20 PM) i asked in an earlier post and might have missed it---but how much extra did you send uncle sam last year for the greater good? l I didn't, but I'm not a millionaire. If I won the lottery I wouldn't take any tax deductions because I think the current rate for the uber wealthy is about right where it should be, without deductions. You are trying to twist my words to make it look like I support the government taking ALL of somebodies estate. I don't. You might as well just cut the checks directly to the poor souls rather than go on a political initiative to have the government bill you for it. It seems your distaste for government doesn't include them raising your taxes in order to give the top 2% a significant tax break. Assuming you're one of the 98%. So how much are you sending to the kids of the uber rich who've suffered the loss of money due to the estate tax? ########################## rfey--i wasn't trying to twist your words, just trying to get a better picture of where you were coming from. and i never suggested in the least that you were for government seizure of all assets, nor do i think that you are. i think you're simply misguided on this issue, but that's only because i disagree with you. i do think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and i do think it's a reasonable question when you suggest that others need to do more---what else are you doing? sorry, not a 2%er, just an average middle class American trying to make it through the world. to directly answer your question, i sent zero money to wealthy families who lost money due to estate tax. i don't recall asking you to do so, either. i didn't call out for a subsidy or an entitlement program to keep the wealthy in their bentleys. i do, however, contribute to causes i feel are just and worthy, that touch my heart, or that move me in some way. i think that's fundamentally different than the government taking a substantial percentage of my estate--should i be fortunate to be able to have one---and wasting most of it under some absurd notion that it's all for the greater good. as for what you would do if you won the lottery (hint: save your money a little bit at a time, invest wisely and regularly in your own future, and build your own brand of wealth over time--the odds of success are better than the pick 6), who can really say? i don't want to insult you because i don't know you--but who's to say you don't glom onto every penny you can using the theory "i finally got mine."

a friend of a friend of mine has a similar philosophical approach to life as rfey. someone's got it better, someone had it easier, someone doesn't do their part, someone owes someone else something more. i guess i can understand it if mother theresa says it, but "wealthy" is really a relative term. this other fellow is a CPA, makes pretty good coin, though not anything that puts him the stratosphere. his approach is that indeed, people making more than the oft-referenced $250k need to do more. it doesn't matter that they already do, it only seems to matter that they have more than he does, thus the burden must rightly be shifted to them. at the same time---when i asked him for some feedback on his personal plan to assist those less fortunate, he opted to do what comes natural to those caught in a pickle. he suggested that he couldn't possibly do more because he needed to save for the new car he liked to buy every 4 years. when i suggested that he might better hold off on that new car purchase for 6 years and give that extra money to those less fortunate----he didn't think that was so fair. when i suggested that instead of maxing out his contributions to his retirement plan, he send that extra money in to help the downtrodden--well he thought that was a bad idea too. it's an endless loop of pretzel logic, really. i think some people find it natural to see people they perceive to have more as somehow having gotten one over on them, and phrases like "silver spoon" get tossed around. the attitude generally changes when those behind rfey and my-unable-to-do-anymore-because-i-need-my-new-smell-prius start asking them to contribute a bit more.

i asked in an earlier post and might have missed it---but how much extra did you send uncle sam last year for the greater good? l

assuming you're not a self-loathing kennedy kid, you might qualify as egocentric under 3a and b, no?

rfey, demand more from your government than asking them to take someone else's money. or, at least, demand they spend what they have wisely and efficiently before they go banging on the door like a crack ho looking for more. and by the way--how much extra do you send the government each year to help those less fortunate than you?

couple things--WB has 3 or 4 children as I recall. he's a brilliant man, as is bill gates. certainly they have a right to their opinions. i never argued agaisnt the estate tax, just rendered an opinion on how it all works. taxation is a necessary fact of life, and fully understand that our way of life is dependant upon someone paying for it. the question is one of degrees, and my personal opinion is that the system is pretty flawed. as for your ultra-conservative friend--he voted with his wallet. that's good for him. i don't follow why golisano is "crying and pouting" when he votes with his? i haven't read up on him lately, but did he say he didn't want to pay any taxes at all? does one lose the right to make personal decisions once they cross a certain threshold? ******** http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/...arity1.fortune/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn081.htm As you'll see from the articles above, both Gates and Buffet are indeed passing their children over to a large extent and donating their estates to charity. Gates is planning (or was planning, as it's an old article admittedly, although I don't ever recall reading that he's changed his mind) to give away almost all of his money to charity, leaving his kids $10m each. A whopping sum to the average person, but an infinitessimal fraction of what he's worth. Ten million is more than a few thousand sheckles, but comparatively to what he's giving away, not by much. These guys are practicing what they're preaching. From what I've read, Gates fears that the kind of wealth he has would destroy his kids' drive and make them less likely to be worthy contributing members of society (having known the kids of some of the wealthy, I'd tend to agree in many, but certainly not all, cases.) You may not agree with them, but you may want to check your facts before making statements such as those bolded above. ************ with due respect to you--what facts was I supposed to check? the $10million each he's leaving them? what's the magic of $10m v. say $1m or $500k? like you, my thoughts are colored by my own experiences, but bg leaving $10m of his estate to his kids is different than, say, a hard-working entrepeneur with a modest estate of $7.5 million getting dinged for $3.85 for his kids. for what it's worth, i find it admirable that he'd look at it life that way, but at the same time i would love to see the details of the trusts and tax-avoidance mechanisms he --- and microsoft----currently has in place to reduce his otherwise 'fair share'. and, where the government is concerned--- what's the magic of 55%? could the government be more efficient and get by with 35%? would you meet me halfway and agree that the government is largely and institutionally wasteful and should be able to get by with less? and so i don't paint a picture that i'm all about the benjamins---here's the problem with taxation: federal gas tax+state gas tax+federal estate tax+ state estae tax+sales tax+county sales tax+property tax+school tax+federal excise tax+carbon tax+social security tax+federal income tax+state income tax+cable tv tax+utility tax+tire recovery tax+911 surcharge tax+ all the other taxes i can't think of right now ==================== not enough tax. ever. it's all a question of degrees. oh--and someone mentioned earlier one of the great misnomers of our time. "defecit neutral". how is anything "defecit neutral" if to pay for it, you have to get it from someone else, willingly or otherwise?

Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue. The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share. the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard. The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo? as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.

when the choice is pessimism v. optimism, i go with optimism. if it breaks as badly as some say, i can (again) be miserable September to November, and comfortably numb in December. that's the beauty of the game, and i see no reason to get an early jump on it. my reason(s) for optimism are as follows: 1. the jets have a volatile mix and there is no certainty their science project will work. plus, year two can be a real nut-cruncher for a coach. 2. the pats have brady, the pats have beli, and the pats may yet again sweep us. that said, they were quite beatable last year and have aged just a bit more, conventional wisdom is their defense has not substantially improved, and as sucky as we've been, we've had chances virtually every year to split the series with them. someone said a few posts ago---we lost because we were a bad team. true enough. but, if our game plan and exectuion is better, one might assume we win those and squeak a couple more out. in other words, we need to be good enough to win some close ones. 3. dolfinkies are year three, beatable as always. maybe sparano lines 'em up for a run this year, maybe not. defensive coordinator has some skill, so they may be tough. we'll see. i personally like the attitude that appears to rule the day with gailey and his staff. seem like a no-nonsense approach to football, seems like he has a definite plan on fielding a tough football team--and iti's tough to imagine a more painful offensive line shuffle than we had last year. consistency should help any team, and gailey's been around long enough to work some magic (note some, not alot) schematically to address some of the4 shortcomings of this offense. defensively---who the frig knows. i hope for solid coaching. that is reason enough for optimism for right now.

i was with you until the fox news commentary, and it's funny, but you can really say that about any media outlet. you'd really have to go with very "any media outlet-ish". it's all agenda driven, brother, virtually all news is opinion-based and designed to sell ad space. anyway, couldn't stand by and watch you defend roscoe while being sucked into the matrix.

i heard he had only bowled 6 frames when the pins conceded.

or...are you drinking today and only think you're sober now? a bender can be very confusing and matrix-like. listen up--it should be tough for most people who have graduated from high school to be offended when someone named bananathumb* doesn't like their clothes, their hair, or their entire city. that said--good for you for taking the time to care enough to jump back in. *or any other screen name including mine

pdads-- it is not an issue of fairness. if it was 'fair' good effort and lotsa moxy would prevail and the good guys would win out (we'd have a Super Bowl or three, too). if it was fair an owner wouldn't have to pay a player who sat out, who got hurt, who was undermotivated, who didn't deliver and so on. if it was fair, there'd be a chart, they could all agree on what was worth what to whom, and no one would argue either too much, or too little. it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of legalities. it's an issue of negotiation, what's acceptable risk to a franchise, to a player, and to an agent. i suggest with striking clarity that no party to these contracts wants anything to do with fairness. they want to strike the best deal in order to protect their best interest. besides, equity is a sliding scale based on the year and performance of the team and the player. my thought with respect to guys holding out is that virtually every year, a guy like tom brady or peyton manning or drew brees should be holding out because they should always be at or near the top of the payscale, including guaranteed money, adjusted by some factor to reflect the net worth of a franchise qb as it relates to, say, a wide receiver or left tackle or whomever. and with due respect to you and your opinion, considering the guaranteed portion of the contract as seperate and apart from the annual compensation is akin to considering a wave not part of the ocean. i'm thinking no way andre johnson signs for $5mil per season absent the $10+ guaranteed. and, if you think that he made a mistake signing at that time for what he did, i think you're underestimating the improtance of common sense that an agent might bring to the table wehn encouraging a client to sign for something that a year or two later looks to be undervalued. see theisman, joe.

last point. my contract has non-compete language in it, so yes, i could walk but as richard gere said in "officer and a gentleman"---"I got nowhere else to go....". good stuff, all of this, i'm respectful of different points of view--or try to be. i forgot to mention i'm the proud son of a wonderful man who happened to be a 40 year member of the IBEW. i try to see both sides of the argument, sometimes successfully, sometimes not i suppose. i know this----God Bless the United States of America--and God Bless the Buffalo Bills.

jerry jones, dan snyder and ralph wilson are in different positions, though, no? if you're going to ding ralph for this issue, then go the whole way. it probably made more financial sense somewhere along the line for ralph to move the franchise, get what he can, and be done with it. and, to the point below, the game IS about the dallas cowboys organization, the washington redskins organization, and the buffalo bills organization (or the next city it lands in). let me clarify my point on the players not making the game. i'm ok with andre johnson earning $30 mill. absolutely, 100%, good for him, spend it wisely, be smart and create intergenerational welath for you and your family. all i meant was....when andre johnson is done, someone else plays his spot. they scrape his name of the locker and get the next receiver in there. andre johnson is not the nfl, but i do concur the ability for a player to generate hype is a big part of it. and yes----make changes to the structure, fine.

deano-i read your posts and generally find your thoughts enlightening. oddly, too, i enjoy your avatar. i think your thoughts here are laid out nicely, but i disagree with your basic premise that NFL contracts don't conform to some sort of regularly accepted standard. i'm not an attorney, but i don't have to go much farther than to the end of my own desk to find a contract written on an at-will basis. i have a contract with a corporation that allows the company to terminate my relationship with 30 days notice. to paint the proper picture, i have 12 years invested with this organization, substantial sums of money invested in my business, employ between 4-6 people depending on the year, and count on my own common sense to provide for both my family and my golden years. of course, my own experience colors my view of the world, but i see this issue as much more complex than rich owner/unfair contract situation. as i mentioned in my previous post, i understand the equity issue as it relates to the players. i'd be quite devastated if the company i worked with went in a different direction and left me holding the bag. emotionally, i get it. legally, i understand the terms of the relationship. and, i understand that i ahev to feed my family, too. i'm of the mind that the deal the union has cut with ownership is legal and binding, thus to suggest inequity as to the structure of the deal belies the fact that two parties came together to structure the deal in the first place. no contract is perfect, i'd think, but it seems to me a player doesn't get "guaranteed" money if the trade off is a player gets a 3 year, no-cut clause without recognizing that the "true" value of the player really is set by the amount of guarantee he commands in any given year under the current arrangement. Put another way, if player X gets a $13m guaranteed bonus, and a a $4mill annual contract under the current structure, it occurs to me the team is comfortable risking $17m or thereabouts. I'd think the downside in looking past one year with guaranteed cash in pocket is the risk of injury, player motivation, and so on. Certainly they hope for more, but who knows? so, it's a deal with the devil any way you cut it. players have one perspective, agents another, ownership a third, and the union has a fourth. it's imperfect, and clearly that seems to be coming to a head. by the way---i never suggested crying for the owners, never even came close to it. quite honestly, i don't cry for the players, either. if you want to talk emotion---virtually every one of these guys is living the dream of men everywhere to be among a group of elite athletes with an opportunity to play in the greatest league in the world (just my humble opinion). some get paid handsomely for their time on the field, and know the risks they face. i respect the elvel of commitment and athleticism it took to them to get there. i don't begrudge them earning millions of dollars, nor do i fault an owner for their success. here's some other things i don't do---- i don't refer to owners as cheap p'o's.* i don't refer to players as lazy p'o's or tubs of goo or garbage.** *i admit to badrapping ralph wilson for his inability to deliver a winning team to our fair city, but see it less of an issue as to how much he spends, more of how he spends it. **i admit to badrapping jason peter's for ignoring his obligation to his team and the fans, and to badrapping vince wilfork for the shot he took at losman which i felt was designed to injure. i do, however, feel badly for a guy like, say Takeo Spikes or Eric Wood or Sam Cowhart when they bust their ass on the field and end up with a major injury. this was cathartic. thanks.

I can understand your inability to find my argument completely rational and even remotely compelling. Your argument is an emotional one, and emotion has nothing to do with it. I'm not being a hard-ass, it's just pretty clear to me that when Drew Rosenhaus sits down with the negotiating mgmt group from the team, he knows what he's doing. I don't see it remotely as an Oprah moment. Would you at least spot me this----would you support (millionaire) Andre Johnson returning the unearned pro-rata share of his guaranteed bonus money to the (billionaire) owner as part of the re-negotiation? I'd assume if we're looking for equity, that is. Maybe guaranteed money needs to come off the table? We do have some common ground, though. I'd concur with you, though maybe for different reasons, that the system is broken. I think it's onerous to all parties that such princely sums are paid to draft choices who haven't done a thing, at the expense of players who have earned their keep. I'd be happy to see this type of thing end forever.

it's not a matter of favoring the owners, it's a matter of legalities. again, the whole issue of "fairness" is irrelevant, and pretty obviously most in the system see it that way. the players union is doing nothing to curb rookie salaries in favor of the older, established players. in the end, i see a guy like andre johnson earning $30 mill in guaranteed numbers, and the argument that Ralph Wilson has benefited too richly is lost. Without guys like Ralph Wilson risking his money---regardless of the results of his particular franchise---Andre Johnson takes what he can get out of college, and I bet it's less than $30 mill. Good for him---it's $30 mill, but he ain't the game, and when he's done, or injured, it's like waiting in line for cheese at the deli---NEXT?

my continued problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at each player's situation as if it's the only situation to be considered, ignoring the collective bargaining aspect of it. to get to where you are at, you have to sidestep the contractual issues negotiated by union, the guaranteed money that the player's agent is able to negotiate based on the performance of said player, and revert to the old standard of "equity". there is tremendous risk to the owner of the team as it relates to both production and injury to players. i can understand that some people want to take the side of the player, but at a minimum you have to recognize that every issue you outlined on behalf of the player exists for ownership as well. put another way, it borders on the absurd to suggest that there are no guarantees, except the guarantees. you really see the players and their agents as unwitting pawns in the system? please. the contract is what the contract is. the very violence of the game, and the popularity of the sport dictates that players take risks in exchange for potentially huge paydays. have him sit. fine him for each day of mandatory team commitment he misses, and let the fans know the full story. this is classless.

i saw his cousin, sometimesnotthatintoit, he didn't want to speculate. a solid to above-average LT makes things interesting, assuming EW makes it back relatively quickly.

i disagree, they are ripping off the saints fans. you wanna make a statement? plastic is he new paper.

1-15, to a division championship at 11-5, to a 7-9 under-whelming performance where they split with the struggling team from Orchard Park. You see with clarity the obvious point that Miami has arrived? I dunno, you could argue they underperformed last year. Or over-performed the year before that.

sure. everyone has the right to be an a++hole from time to time, then again there's no need to abuse the privelege. how about this, just don't visit the site? don't click on the links. get your information from a site you find less offensive? or how about this---provide the feedback to someone who gives a crap? newsflash--espn sells stuff. plenty of people are buying. maybe your suggestion to be less sensitive should have applied to leonidas?

next time, just order a half-caf.

i was pretty amazed by the numbers quoted in the joe d story about the 401k, annuity payout, health insurance and so on. i recognize the vast resources rolling through the league, but that's a substantial future liability. i also recognize the numbers quoted were for a ten year veteran, of the league who earned $15m, and i wonder how many players fit that description. i'd think the owners have crunched those numbers back and forth, and the union has as well. the odd man out is the retired player, since they have the least amount of juice at the table. all that---and while the battle has waged for some time--this past few years is not a great time to ask the owners for concessions. you don't have to look to deeply into the media--right wing or otherwise----to see companies wrestling and ultimately being crippled by the issue of future benefits to past employees. there was a time that GM looked every bit as strong as the NFL.

there is a fine line between charisma and crazy. if things go well and they get on a roll, they'll likely play well. solid defense, possession offense with sanchez in year 2. however, if things break badly, an injury or two, the collision of egos on the team, and a couple tough losses---well then i;d think chubby or skinny rex could get real annoying real fast. for those who think they are a shoe-in, how many one-hit wonders do you have to see in nfl before you realize stringing two together has an awful lot to do with luck?