Cugalabanza Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just kidding. Obviously that's impossible. 100%, by definition, is the maximum amount anyone can give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just kidding. Obviously that's impossible. 100%, by definition, is the maximum amount anyone can give. Estate tax. Taxed when you made it, taxed as you invested it, those who you invested were taxed reducing your yield, then you were taxed when you spent any of it, the makers of products you bought were taxed, and finally you are taxed when you croak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just kidding. Obviously that's impossible. 100%, by definition, is the maximum amount anyone can give. I worked at Channel 5 in Boston way back when. One of our promo campaigns used the saying "We give 105%". It regularly pissed me off, and I was not shy in saying so at dept head meetings...or pretty much anywhere. My feeling was, not only is giving 105% impossible, it is LESS than the standard 110% which is regularly used by moronic marketers and sports announcers. There was even an antiperspirant commercial at the time that claimed it gave 110%. So we, in effect, were giving less than underarm deodorant. I guess it seemed to me that, if you were someone stupid enough to be swayed, in any way, by the claim "We give 105%" then you might likely conclude we were downright lazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I give about 35% most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FluffHead Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I give about 35% most of the time. I agree. There are moments and situations where I am inspired, but lately 35 percent has been the norm, and usually, its quite wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 But these go to 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nashvillebills Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 i give 100% no matter how hard i try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Estate tax. Taxed when you made it, taxed as you invested it, those who you invested were taxed reducing your yield, then you were taxed when you spent any of it, the makers of products you bought were taxed, and finally you are taxed when you croak. ...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just kidding. Obviously that's impossible. 100%, by definition, is the maximum amount anyone can give. That is one of the most overused and downright stupid idioms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Estate tax. Taxed when you made it, taxed as you invested it, those who you invested were taxed reducing your yield, then you were taxed when you spent any of it, the makers of products you bought were taxed, and finally you are taxed when you croak. Sorry, even though this line of thinking lends itself to good political slogans like the death tax. 110 % remains physically impossible. Even if the estate tax were a virtually confiscatory 75% (which it neither is numerically or practically since one would have to be a legal fool not to avoid even the numeric level hit of the estate tax but still retain controlling influence on the residual) this is a tax on the amount left in the will. The next tax assessment comes with the earnings from that total. The additional taxes you name are triggered by additional profit making or additional acts of purchase and consumption. Is this double, triple or whatever dipping. Sure. However, this comes as a cost of being part of fiscal system where there is at least some semblance of agreement to a set of rules which are simply essential to an economic system existing at all. its in for a penny and thus in for a pound. It is simply fatuous for one to whine about the part you do not like but to think that the system would exist as a whole if you simply took out the parts you do not like. The system works because everyone is allowed to complain and even to make some marginal changes around the edges in how funds are allocated, but a if those who champion elimination of the things they call politically a death tax were to win, it would merely cause the squeezed balloon to require some other type of input or eventually the whole thing deflates. The thing that amazes me about the estate tax is that some many people whine about it as though it is some fundamental strike at the individual when actually if it were eliminated (and not replaced with something else which then the bleaters would whine about) the system would collapse. I really prefer to point of view of folks like Warren Buffet who are ardent supporter of the death tax because they know they can avoid it and still direct their resources any way they want them. This includes leaving a chunk of change to their heirs that makes sure those heirs are not reduced to nothing, but still maintain that sense of personal achievement need that made Warren Buffet the economic wizard he is. As far as the Bills go, I do not think Mr. Ralph is anyone's fool and he and his high-priced lawyers have set this up to take care of who he wants to take care of. I simply hope that Bills fans are amongst those (if not pre-eminent) among those who chooses to take care of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 ALWAYS GIVE 100%: - 12% Monday - 23% Tuesday - 40% Wednesday - 20% Thursday - 5% Friday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sorry, even though this line of thinking lends itself to good political slogans like the death tax. 110 % remains physically impossible. Even if the estate tax were a virtually confiscatory 75% (which it neither is numerically or practically since one would have to be a legal fool not to avoid even the numeric level hit of the estate tax but still retain controlling influence on the residual) this is a tax on the amount left in the will. The next tax assessment comes with the earnings from that total. The additional taxes you name are triggered by additional profit making or additional acts of purchase and consumption. Is this double, triple or whatever dipping. Sure. However, this comes as a cost of being part of fiscal system where there is at least some semblance of agreement to a set of rules which are simply essential to an economic system existing at all. its in for a penny and thus in for a pound. It is simply fatuous for one to whine about the part you do not like but to think that the system would exist as a whole if you simply took out the parts you do not like. The system works because everyone is allowed to complain and even to make some marginal changes around the edges in how funds are allocated, but a if those who champion elimination of the things they call politically a death tax were to win, it would merely cause the squeezed balloon to require some other type of input or eventually the whole thing deflates. The thing that amazes me about the estate tax is that some many people whine about it as though it is some fundamental strike at the individual when actually if it were eliminated (and not replaced with something else which then the bleaters would whine about) the system would collapse. I really prefer to point of view of folks like Warren Buffet who are ardent supporter of the death tax because they know they can avoid it and still direct their resources any way they want them. This includes leaving a chunk of change to their heirs that makes sure those heirs are not reduced to nothing, but still maintain that sense of personal achievement need that made Warren Buffet the economic wizard he is. As far as the Bills go, I do not think Mr. Ralph is anyone's fool and he and his high-priced lawyers have set this up to take care of who he wants to take care of. I simply hope that Bills fans are amongst those (if not pre-eminent) among those who chooses to take care of. Here's a nice story about our betters in the public sector. They are everywhere. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/c...s-protests.html The top dog in that story will get 600K per year retirement pay. Easy to resign, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 And even if you gave 100%, wouldn't that mean that you died at the end of the game, with no energy to even draw another breath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just kidding. Obviously that's impossible. 100%, by definition, is the maximum amount anyone can give. Unless you factor in cocaine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 ALWAYS GIVE 100%:- 12% Monday - 23% Tuesday - 40% Wednesday - 20% Thursday - 5% Friday unless you play for Dick Jauron, and you save that 100% for Fridays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 unless you play for Dick Jauron, and you save that 100% for Fridays. Score one for the left left left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 And even if you gave 100%, wouldn't that mean that you died at the end of the game, with no energy to even draw another breath? Tru dat. But what if ever player did that? and then after they drew their last breath, the game went into over time :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I think our problem is defining what we're giving a certain percentage of in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Here's a nice story about our betters in the public sector. They are everywhere. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/c...s-protests.html The top dog in that story will get 600K per year retirement pay. Easy to resign, eh? This is certainly an outrage and a tragedy. One hopes that there is some recourse for this fool making off with taxpayer dollars that both gets money back and sends him to jail. Its doubtful though given the examples we see in the private sector where folks have walked out the door with multi-million dollar bonuses at private sector operations like AIG, CitiCorps etc with taxpayer money after Sec of Treasury Paulson under Bush began to pay bailouts and Obama decided to continue this practice. They are reminders that we all need to be diligent and despite the clear examples of this behavior by GOP and Dems one hopes it is the exception rather than the rule. Again though getting back to football again it is a demonstration how smart lawyers can do all sorts of stuff with the law. If Mr. Ralph is at all on his game there should be no way that the estate tax should force him to do anything he does not want to do. In the end the key her is gonna be whether preserving the interest of Bills fans is something he wants to do, Even then whatever Mr. Ralph tries to do through his will, my sense is that the final outcome will be determined by the Golden Rule (he who had the Gold Rules). In the end the biggest bucks here and the most lawyers will belong to the NFL. With Mr. Ralph having contractually agreed that the team can only be sold to a qualified buyer and the determination of qualified will be by a cote of 75% of the owners, this team will simply not be sold to the highest bidder but only to the highest qualified bidder (the courts would be reluctant to force the NFL to sell to a bidder whom the NFL dubs to be against the business interests of the NFL- If the high bidder is Osama Bin Laden or Rush Limbaugh and the NFL does not want to sell to this owner because it would hurt the NFL's business model then it does not matter whether this person is the highest bidder, there will be no sale). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saundena Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I worked at Channel 5 in Boston way back when. One of our promo campaigns used the saying "We give 105%". It regularly pissed me off, and I was not shy in saying so at dept head meetings...or pretty much anywhere. My feeling was, not only is giving 105% impossible, it is LESS than the standard 110% which is regularly used by moronic marketers and sports announcers. There was even an antiperspirant commercial at the time that claimed it gave 110%. So we, in effect, were giving less than underarm deodorant. I guess it seemed to me that, if you were someone stupid enough to be swayed, in any way, by the claim "We give 105%" then you might likely conclude we were downright lazy! This made me laugh. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts