's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

How will you fare?(19 posts)

How will you fare?sacheson
Jun 11, 2003 7:13 PM
So what's the point?Live Steam
Jun 12, 2003 5:13 AM
One of the execs on the list makes more that I do so he will get more back from the refund. It's called simple math!
Just because ...sacheson
Jun 12, 2003 7:06 PM
... I proved you stupid down below doesn't mean you have to get defensive! ;0)
I miss your pointPaulCL
Jun 12, 2003 6:24 AM
If a 3% tax cut for me equals $10,000 and a 3% tax cut for Carlie Firorina (of HP) equals $150,000 and a tax cut of 3% for Joe Average equals $ is that unfair?? We all get the SAME percentage cut. I I make 10x that of Mr. Average, I should get 10x the savings. Besides, lower incomes are getting a HIGHER percentage cut.

If I pay more taxes in the first place, why shouldn't I save more when they are cut. I'll bet I still pay 10 TIMES more taxes than Mr. Joe Average even after the tax cut. Is that fair??? I'll bet my percentage of taxes withheld is 3 or 4 times that of Mr. Average....are you crying for me??? Is is fair that in upper tax brackets the deduction for my children is eliminated?? My schedule A deductions reduced by an arbitrary percentage of my income??? Is that fair?? Are my children worth less than Mr. Average's children??
As income goes does income tax percentage and also the deductiblility of many items is gradually eliminated! Talking about a dis-incentive to earn ambition killer.

Gimmee a break. Gimmee a flat tax.

OK...I'll stop ranting. But I just got my paycheck this AM...I netted out (after taxes,witholdings, 401k, etc...) under 44% of my gross income. 44% !! That means 56% of my income goes to the feds, the state, SS, medicare, etc....not fair. why bother to earn more??
You don't get it?Live Steam
Jun 12, 2003 6:41 AM
They don't expect the system to be fair or for the government to be more responsible with our money. They also don't get that it is the governments first and foremost responsibility to protect us and this nation from aggression on all fronts both near and abroad. They don't get that the rest is gravy. No where in the Constitution does it state that the government will provide anything other than that. I don't think that "promote the general welfare" meant taking from the "rich" (who decides what the standard for this is?) and giving to the poor. Heck maybe they want to rewrite the Constitution :O)
I think I get it ...sacheson
Jun 12, 2003 7:15 PM
... I think the obsession you have is kind of like the closet homosexual who acts ultra-homophobic to divert attention from himself. You are a closet Liberal and Clinton supporter, and that's not a cool thing to be around the people you are seeking acceptance from.

Wow ... it's all clear now!

Whoa, Trigger ...sacheson
Jun 12, 2003 7:04 PM
More random jumping to conclusions again, I see.

It's a link to a little worksheet. No need to get so defensive.
Jun 13, 2003 5:27 AM
...but the "link to a little worksheet" has a specific political leaning. For some reason things have changed in this used to be a good thing to be successful and make a good income, now the press vilifies anyone who is successful. Anyone who is very successful (I do not count myself as one) must have done something illegal or morally wrong to get there. Its' sad.

Your link was vilifying business leaders of our biggest companies. Let's not forget: these people are the builders of our economy. They employee hundreds of thousands of people. We need them and they need to been compensated appropriately.

OK...damn...I got up on that soapbox again. I'm getting down. I'm working a half day today and am gonna go ride 40 miles. Later...Paul
Well ...sacheson
Jun 13, 2003 6:26 AM
... let me explain where I was coming from, because I didn't see it as negatively as you did.

Did you ever get that email that was buzzing around a couple of years ago describing Michael Jordan's salary? It gave some real-world examples of how we (the average American) would view the amount of money he makes, then at the end it said something about how he (MJ) could save every penny he made for some number of years, and not equal the annual salary of Bill Gates. I still have that comparison, it is printed out and hanging above my desk at home. Every time I get a call from someone asking for some programming work on the side, that email is part of my inspiration for giving up a few nights or a weekend to help myself and my wife enjoy a little higher standard of living.

When I saw that link, regardless of the originator's intent, I viewed it as a little inspiration ... if there's any county that one can achieve financial freedom freedom from a predefined socio-economic structure, it's the US. I guess I didn't read in the negativity intially, otherwise I would have prefaced my post with "this isn't supposed to be negative ...".

Your interprettation pointed out something I didn't see, and I apologize.

I do, however, disagree a little with your thoughts about the 'shady-ness' of successful individuals. There are several people on that list (Carpenter, Condit, Camilleri, and Barbackow that I know of) who have been (or maybe been accused of being) involved in shady business practices. I'm not saying they don't deserve their success, nor am I supporting the originator of that page, I just don't think they are squeaky clean individuals above any scrutiny. (also note: I am not saying less fortunate people aren't guilty of the same).

Finally, just to clarify if my posts on this site seem to display something different, I am not a Liberal ... I simply am not a fan of GW. Apparently here, and I feel strongly enforced by Mr Steam, that somehow makes me a bleeding heart, Clinton sympathizer who would want to draw attention to successful Americans.
Please, let's dispense formalities. Just call me Steam :O)nmLive Steam
Jun 13, 2003 6:50 AM
to agree with youPaulCL
Jun 14, 2003 5:44 AM
By the time I wrote my second post, I had forgotten all of the names on the list. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the list would include 'questionable' business leaders.

I am not a liberal (I think that's obvious) but I'm no conservative either. A lot of GW's policies scare the hell out of me. In the last election, I viewed him as the lesser of two evils - which, regrettfully - is the most common case. Extreme right wingers scare me more that extreme left wingers. Why? The extreme right often have the money and power to put their ideas into effect. I am holding on to the middle for dear life.

Off to ride. Peace. Have a good father's day or give your dad a good one. Paul
instigating class warfare? nmDougSloan
Jun 12, 2003 6:32 AM
Why does the scale only go to $1mm? I wanted to compare (nm)TJeanloz
Jun 12, 2003 8:30 AM
irrelevant unless you laid off x-thousand workers nmDougSloan
Jun 12, 2003 8:48 AM
re: How will you fare?bboc
Jun 12, 2003 8:59 AM
I get an extra $3 per paycheck. Thank You Mr. Bush! I'll go buy a candy bar and a soda. My life is sooo much better.
do you think it should be more? nmDougSloan
Jun 12, 2003 9:01 AM
You're right...53T
Jun 12, 2003 9:46 AM
...its not fare, send me the $3, I'll drink the soda.

You're paying next to nothing in income taxes. Most of your withholding goes to FICA and medicare, two programs that we rich, mean-spirited conservatives want to abolish to get you some more take home pay.
If that is the case then ....Live Steam
Jun 14, 2003 10:38 AM
you are one of the lucky people who actually don't have to pay any federal income taxes according to my calculations. If the program calculated that you get the minimum (which was $200 annually by the way, so I am not sure where you came up with $3 per check) you qualify for EITC. If you have children you will get the additional child credit money too. So you will more than likely get at least $2000 back and not have to pay one thin dime. If this isn't the case, please explain how you arrived at your $3 estimate.

By the way you also didn't explain how your life would be "sooo much better" without it. Hey we are all masters of our destiny. If you want to be privileged enough to pay a few hundred thousand in income taxes either work harder, get a better job, invent something the masses want and need or marry into money :O)
I pay several thousand dollars a year in federal income taxesbboc
Jun 16, 2003 10:20 AM
My estimate came from my paycheck that I just received. It was $3 more. (singel middle class white male without children)

I'm sure any one of the "lucky people" who don't pay Federal Income Tax would switch with you any day, and pay the Feds happily.

If you are so put out with paying your taxes, why don't you become poor, then this great injustice won't bother you anymore.

I'll keep the extra cash, but that doesn't mean I don't think that the tax cut is irresponsable when facing huge budget deficits.