ieatcrayonz Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Does anyone know if these tax increases are applied to under the table money for "services rendered"? Do they have any way of tracking that stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Some of the "poorest" people moneywise I have known have obtained "yachts" and sailed around... Very attainable... Cheaper than a Cig boat that burns all that fuel! Wind is free. Oh you're right there. I sail out of Dana Point here in Orange county. There are some of the biggest and most expensive yachts out there but there is also the trailer park contingent that live on their boats. At one point my dream was to spend my retirement sailing from island to island in the caribbean. But now my dream is to have a nice home in the islands and a boat and just sail when I want. Sailing is very hard work and living on the boat during retirement seemed a bit extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Does anyone know if these tax increases are applied to under the table money for "services rendered"? Do they have any way of tracking that stuff? Depends....what services did you have rendered under the table and does it have anything to do with why you're now pricing wedding rings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Depends....what services did you have rendered under the table and does it have anything to do with why you're now pricing wedding rings? Dude, did I say that was for me? I have a service business that is very discreet. I don't really like dealing with the IRS because my clients are mostly people who have secrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Now, you guys are taking me for being uniformed. However, that is not the case. Yes, having food in you belly, roof over your head, transportation to your job, and a little extra is still better than most have it around the world. Is 100k going to buy you everything in the world? Of course not, but it will buy enough to afford the bare necessities. So now the "bare necessities" is rich? And why are we moving "around the world"? Because somehow you can equate $100K in the Bay Area to $100K in Laos? Nothing like continuing to show the weakness of your argument by trying to use emotion rather than fact. Some of you guys think that we are entitled buy the little extras here and there, but having the little extras is the difference between being really poor to middle class to being rich. 100k/yr can afford few of these extras, but not superfluous excess like a yacht, a plane, and a 10 bedroom home with 5 bathrooms and a pool. The difference between living comfortably or barely making it is, as EinI mention, living within your means. You will find more people that make 100k/year living comfortably than people making 30k/year. You let me know when you and your partner are making $100K a year with a kid in college and one in high school. I can guarantee that you won't feel anywhere near "rich". And using EII as a gauge ain't the greatest source... This brings me to my definition of rich. I see richness as a term of fulfillment. So by my definition, a man that makes $30k/yr, but provides enough for his kids can be rich. Most making $30k/year aren't rich. I see it more as a state of mind. By the same token, you can have Bill Gates not being rich enough. Just my $.02 Except this thread isn't about YOUR perception of rich. It's about taxation and the amount of screwing the average middle class guy is going to take when another socialist hits the White House. So you try and see that as a "state of mind" while the rest of us live in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Bottom line is that whatever you make it's all about budget. If the person budgets their money accordingly, in many cases it can go a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Dude, did I say that was for me? I have a service business that is very discreet. I don't really like dealing with the IRS because my clients are mostly people who have secrets. Just a guess but does it involve Richard Gere and a pipe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Just a guess but does it involve Richard Gere and a pipe? And someone named Lemmingwinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Bottom line is that whatever you make it's all about budget. If the person budgets their money accordingly, in many cases it can go a long way. And a budget is all about percentages of income spent on certain things. It's a balance sheet that when you add up all your expenses it equals your income. But then Uncle Sam comes along and takes a bigger chuck of your income and now you have less money to take care of your expenses. This is reality whether you are "rich" or middle class or whatever. So I still have yet to hear from anyone why the "rich" should have to sacrifice their lifestyle to improve yours? Distriubition of wealth is a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 So now the "bare necessities" is rich? And why are we moving "around the world"? Because somehow you can equate $100K in the Bay Area to $100K in Laos? Nothing like continuing to show the weakness of your argument by trying to use emotion rather than fact. You let me know when you and your partner are making $100K a year with a kid in college and one in high school. I can guarantee that you won't feel anywhere near "rich". And using EII as a gauge ain't the greatest source... Except this thread isn't about YOUR perception of rich. It's about taxation and the amount of screwing the average middle class guy is going to take when another socialist hits the White House. So you try and see that as a "state of mind" while the rest of us live in reality. Wow, I really got you going Darin. FWIW, the middle class has been rubbed out not by a "socialist" president, but as a result of NAFTA (and other trade agreements) which was H.W. Bush's agreement originally. Now, all of this exporting of jobs is largely because of a Republican congress not doing their job. Also, the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown largely in part due to W. Bush's tax cuts, which have also bankrupted the country. Now, if the "socialist" Obama has a tax plan that slams the wealthy, I am all for it. However, it looks like the upper middle class will benefit from his plan. +1 to pBills post. It is all about budget and living within your means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Nice job of pushing NAFTA off as a strictly Republican initiative. Do you remember who signed the agreement? No, of course not...it is an 'inconvenient truth'. The genie is out of the bottle folks...deal with it. The real question is: Is Obama for or against NAFTA? Does he know where he stands? What is his true position, the one he speaks about on the stump or the one he sent Goolsbee to talk to Canada about? Lastly, tax cuts aren't the problem-spending is. And BOTH side are guilty, although the current admin. has more blame in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Obama is anti-free trade, and thus wants to remove one of the ties that helps mitigate risks in the US economy. Sadly, McCain is at best reluctantly free trade. The free trade issue is one of the few where McCain and Obama differ and a reason I lean to McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Wow, I really got you going Darin. FWIW, the middle class has been rubbed out not by a "socialist" president, but as a result of NAFTA (and other trade agreements) which was H.W. Bush's agreement originally. Now, all of this exporting of jobs is largely because of a Republican congress not doing their job. Also, the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown largely in part due to W. Bush's tax cuts, which have also bankrupted the country. Now, if the "socialist" Obama has a tax plan that slams the wealthy, I am all for it. However, it looks like the upper middle class will benefit from his plan. Great post......assuming you were going for the 'number of misstatements per word' record. FWIW, the middle class has been rubbed out The middle class has not been 'rubbed out'. >50% of all tax returns last year had an AGI between $30k - $100k. but as a result of NAFTA (and other trade agreements) which was H.W. Bush's agreement originally "Originally"? Is your partisanship so pathetic that you can't even admit that Clinton is the single person most responsible for making NAFTA law? Now, all of this exporting of jobs is largely because of a Republican congress not doing their job. Newsflash: The Democrats control Congress. Just as they have for the majority of the past 80 years. Also, the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown largely in part due to W. Bush's tax cuts, The gap has increased primarily as a result of investment and speculation in wildly successful new industries (which in turn have created millions of new jobs for the middle class). which have also bankrupted the country. Another newsflash: The country is not bankrupt. Now, if the "socialist" Obama has a tax plan that slams the wealthy, I am all for it. Nice work. Hating anyone who is more successful than you is how this country was built! Don't forget to hang onto your guns and religion. However, it looks like the upper middle class will benefit from his plan. Highly unlikely the 28% bracket will see any benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Now, if the "socialist" Obama has a tax plan that slams the wealthy, I am all for it. And why are you for it? You want to punish the "rich" for being successful? If so you need to remove the quotations around socialist> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Great post......assuming you were going for the 'number of misstatements per word' record. Thank you for doing that. I didn't have the patience. One of the 100K/year rich people gets to handle his next retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Your calling the most balanced news source out there the Communist New Network is most of what I need to know about you. Let me guess. If you're not an ultra-conservative you're a liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: CNN balanced....hahahahhahahaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 CNN balanced....hahahahhahahaaa Even better was his explanation that because MSNBC is liberal and Fox conservative, that CNN must be balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And why are you for it? You want to punish the "rich" for being successful? If so you need to remove the quotations around socialist> Honestly, those that have more should pay a higher %. A flat tax rate would favor the wealthy and be unfair to the poor and lower class. Now, a million dollar swing between McCain's plan and Obama's is drastic, let alone the fact that Obama wants to raise the taxes for that tax bracket that much. But, I do agree that the wealthy are not doing their share compared to what percentage they had paid in previous decades. Therefore, they should pay a bit higher. $700,000 higher is a bit too much, some raise of taxes on that bracket would be fair. KD, yes our country is bankrupt. We owe tons of money overseas and to social security. Something to the tune of $9 trillion in debt, which equates to roughly $30,000 per citizen. Assuming that our gov't keeps outspending its budget as grossly as it has been, it is safe to say that my generation is going to suffer due to the inefficient and irresponsible behavior of our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Honestly, those that have more should pay a higher %. Um, they already do. When will it, in your opinion, be high enough? Hell why not just make the "rich" people just pay all the goddamn taxes so the poor people are no longer poor. Would that make you happy? Is that your opinion of utopia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 A flat tax rate would favor the wealthy and be unfair to the poor and lower class. How on Earth would everybody paying the same exact rate be unfair to somebody? I'd appreciate an explanation because I really suck at economics. And fwiw I make less than 100k and consider myself rich. Probably because I grew up moving from one imminently condemned pile of bricks to another. Like all things in life, it's a matter of perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts