Struggling to Get By On 250K

[quote name='dohdough']False equivalency. It would depend on where in North Dakota. I'm sure there's at least one community in which there is a similar COLA as NYC.[/QUOTE]

Or how big the house is and how much property is it on.

I was having this argument on another forum. The guy was trying to say that 250k is nothing while living in Manhattan. But if living in Manhattan makes you struggle to "survive", why wouldn't you move out to a cheaper area and commute in?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080916_715099.htm
 
[quote name='javeryh']Exactly. And by the same logic, someone making over $250K in North Dakota doesn't feel the tax increase as much as the guy making $250K in NYC. This is why people who appear to be making an "assload" of money complain about the tax increase. To me, the $250K threshold isn't high enough. If they set the bar at $750K or even $500K that would make a lot more sense.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I could live with tax breaks for COLA.

But at the same time, as I said earlier, it's a choice. Instead of bitching about it, you could move somewhere else. There are law firms in every city, no need to stay in the most expensive place in the country if you aren't happy with your salary to COLA ratio. NYC is highly overrated IMO. Plenty of other cities with great dining and entertainment etc. options.


[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I wonder about more money being put into education and health care--as far as I know there's been cries for that sort of thing in my state for 20 years. So there's more financial aid for college students--that just means universities have a new baseline to set tuition at. Now financial aid is a given, and if you're not getting it you're at a serious disadvantage (i.e. getting ripped off). In health care it's the same thing, insurance is a given. The only difference here is that an individual might be paying for their insurance--provided by companies that can easily deny or obstruct a claim when it is needed.

So here what you have is bloat presented in the guise of assistance and affordability.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of fixing public schools, not so much financial aid etc. Upgrading school facilities and technology, getting good teachers to work in bad districts etc. etc. Has to be coupled with more merit based evaluation of public school teachers though.

And health care I was meaning move to universal health care.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Or how big the house is and how much property is it on.

I was having this argument on another forum. The guy was trying to say that 250k is nothing while living in Manhattan. But if living in Manhattan makes you struggle to "survive", why wouldn't you move out to a cheaper area and commute in?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080916_715099.htm[/QUOTE]
Exactly...it's a bullshit argument. Especially when they can live like less than 20 mins away from Manhattan and be more than fine on $250K with a Mercedes in the garage, yes a garage and not a parking spot for those that miss the nuance. It's not like we're talking about some poor schmucks that make $30K and literally can't afford to move anywhere.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I could live with tax breaks for COLA.

But at the same time, as I said earlier, it's a choice. Instead of bitching about it, you could move somewhere else. There are law firms in every city, no need to stay in the most expensive place in the country if you aren't happy with your salary to COLA ratio. NYC is highly overrated IMO. Plenty of other cities with great dining and entertainment etc. options.




I was thinking of fixing public schools, not so much financial aid etc. Upgrading school facilities and technology, getting good teachers to work in bad districts etc. etc. Has to be coupled with more merit based evaluation of public school teachers though.

And health care I was meaning move to universal health care.[/QUOTE]
Too bad that one of the first things to get cut is education spending. Funny how that works isn't it?

And yes, NYC is highly overrated.
 
[quote name='dohdough']False equivalency. It would depend on where in North Dakota. I'm sure there's at least one community in which there is a similar COLA as NYC.[/QUOTE]

Please.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']NYC is highly overrated IMO. Plenty of other cities with great dining and entertainment etc. options.[/QUOTE]

Easily said by someone who doesn't live there. ;)
 
[quote name='javeryh']Easily said by someone who doesn't live there. ;)[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But again, you know the COLA sucks, so you either think it's worth it for whatever reason, or you don't. But with you saying you work long hours, having kids, training for a marathon etc., how often do you really take advantage of things NYC offers anyway to justify the cost?

Bitching about it and taxes etc. doesn't matter. You six figure income guys aren't going to get any sympathy when whining about that kind of stuff.

It's not evny, I do fine for myself. It's the absurdity about whining when we're much better off than the majority of people.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Please.[/QUOTE]
Your statement is bullshit and you know it. Prove me wrong.

[quote name='javeryh']Easily said by someone who doesn't live there. ;)[/QUOTE]
Boston, Las Vegas, San Franciso, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Denver, Minneapolis...how many cities do you need to be listed?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Boston, Las Vegas, San Franciso, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Denver, Minneapolis...how many cities do you need to be listed?[/QUOTE]

To be clear, I will concede that being the largest city in the world, NYC does offer more than any other city.

But I'll maintain that it doesn't offer enough to justify the COLA kick in the pants compared to most other cities. Especially someone with wife, kids, long work hours and who lives in the NJ suburbs and isn't taking advantage of the city like a bachelor in a condo in Manhattan does etc.

I've been very happy with my move to ATL--and I was very skeptical coming from DC. But the foods just as good, still get all the concerts, have pro sports in every major sport as well as big time college sports. Fox theater gets lots of good off broadway plays and musicals. Some great places for good beer. A nice art gallery, a great park (piedmont), a fantastic aquarium, etc. etc.

And again I live in a fancy high rise building in mid town a block from Piedmont park with a nice view of the downtown skyline for less than I paid to live in a Hispanic ghetto area with a lot of crime etc. in a DC suburb.
 
Well, I'm in the city all the time for work so there's that. We go to baseball games, concerts and plays on a pretty regular basis. We eat dinners out in NY, etc. We always say we should take better advantage of it but I think overall we do OK. It's a quick train ride from my house and I don't ever have to even get in a car. Also, my entire family is here - I don't think I'd want to move the kids away from their grandparents and stuff. It's definitely my choice and it has expensive consequences but I couldn't imagine living anywhere else - I'd go mental in the middle of nowhere with the mcmansions and strip malls and all other cities don't measure up. Boston is OK and DC was fun when I was in my 20s but that's about it.

I don't want sympathy or anything - I just don't think it is a black and white issue.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Holy shit, awesome.

EDIT: Holy shit, this is actually from the WSJ. I'm even more surprised.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, so was I. It basically says everything that has been said in this thread.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To be clear, I will concede that being the largest city in the world, NYC does offer more than any other city.

But I'll maintain that it doesn't offer enough to justify the COLA kick in the pants compared to most other cities. Especially someone with wife, kids, long work hours and who lives in the NJ suburbs and isn't taking advantage of the city like a bachelor in a condo in Manhattan does etc.

I've been very happy with my move to ATL--and I was very skeptical coming from DC. But the foods just as good, still get all the concerts, have pro sports in every major sport as well as big time college sports. Fox theater gets lots of good off broadway plays and musicals. Some great places for good beer. A nice art gallery, a great park (piedmont), a fantastic aquarium, etc. etc.

And again I live in a fancy high rise building in mid town a block from Piedmont park with a nice view of the downtown skyline for less than I paid to live in a Hispanic ghetto area with a lot of crime etc. in a DC suburb.[/QUOTE]
Tokyo is the largest city in the world, by population at least.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Well, I'm in the city all the time for work so there's that. We go to baseball games, concerts and plays on a pretty regular basis. We eat dinners out in NY, etc. We always say we should take better advantage of it but I think overall we do OK. It's a quick train ride from my house and I don't ever have to even get in a car. Also, my entire family is here - I don't think I'd want to move the kids away from their grandparents and stuff. It's definitely my choice and it has expensive consequences but I couldn't imagine living anywhere else - I'd go mental in the middle of nowhere with the mcmansions and strip malls and all other cities don't measure up. Boston is OK and DC was fun when I was in my 20s but that's about it.

I don't want sympathy or anything - I just don't think it is a black and white issue.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough on the family thing. That's understandable.

The others are all things any big city offers. No shortage of great food (for less cost), concerts, sports, etc. here in Atlanta. Again, much cheaper for all this stuff than it was in DC, much less NYC.

But I get the family importance, so that is a valid reason.
 
[quote name='Clak']Tokyo is the largest city in the world, by population at least.[/QUOTE]

Learn something new every day!
 
We live in Columbus, OH, and the cost of living is pretty low. The problem is we just don't like it here. We are looking to possibly move to the Seattle or Boston area but they have pretty high COL. We are willing to compromise on a less-expensive area nearby these though. We just don't like Ohio and don't have family here except my parents. The COL shit kills me though. I wish we liked this place because it is so affordable.

[quote name='Clak']Tokyo is the largest city in the world, by population at least.[/QUOTE]

Having visited again a few weeks ago, I maintain that Tokyo kicks fucking ass and I would move there in a heartbeat if I knew moon language. And COL isn't so bad if you know where to go. Employers just drain you dry, though. I would think about moving there for retirement if the exchange rate is better then.
 
It's about time those geography classes came in handy. Mexico City seem to rank 2nd/3rd depending on the year and who did the estimates.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Your statement is bullshit and you know it. Prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]

Your statement made no sense - on the off chance there is an area in North Dakota with the same cost of living as in NYC which I highly highly doubt this means that the $250K threshold makes sense across the board for everyone in America? I don't think so. Also, assuming this mythical place exists, things like groceries and property taxes would still be WAY cheaper.


[quote name='dohdough']Boston, Las Vegas, San Franciso, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Denver, Minneapolis...how many cities do you need to be listed?[/QUOTE]

Boston is OK but too cold. I hear San Fran is nice but the cost of living there is equal to NYC (if not more). Chicago is also nice but way too freaking cold. I've never been to Texas (although the houses on realtor.com make me drool). Atlanta is meh. Philly is a total and complete shithole with practically zero redeeming qualities (same with Baltimore). Raleigh isn't actually a city. The only city I've ever been to that comes close to offering what NYC offers is Paris. Everything else just doesn't cut it.
 
[quote name='javeryh']
Boston is OK but too cold. I hear San Fran is nice but the cost of living there is equal to NYC (if not more). Chicago is also nice but way too freaking cold. I've never been to Texas (although the houses on realtor.com make me drool). Atlanta is meh. Philly is a total and complete shithole with practically zero redeeming qualities (same with Baltimore). Raleigh isn't actually a city. The only city I've ever been to that comes close to offering what NYC offers is Paris. Everything else just doesn't cut it.[/QUOTE]

Is Boston really much colder than NYC? Serious question, I'm from New England.

And yes Baltimore is a shithole.

Have you been to Seattle? If so, your thoughts?
 
You really can't compare living in in New York to living in the rest of the country. Let me tell you, I made nearly twice what I do now and I spent it all (plus some) on housing.
 
I guess one point I'd make about your issue with tax raises and COLA is that you're current tax burden is still more of a burden than someone making the current salary in say Atlanta now.

When it goes up by 3% or whatever when the tax cuts expire, that doesn't change as the person living in a cheaper area gets the same increase. So the added burden you feel hasn't increased relative to people with the same income in cheaper locations.

As for cities comparing, not worth arguing since it's personal preference. But one area I'd suggest caution is most cities require more exploration. NYC everybody goes to Manhattan which is the best part. A lot of cities like Atlanta if you're down town for work, or a conference etc. you'll be disappointed as in a lot of cities the downtown business/hotel districts are pretty dead as everything has moved further out.

Definitely the case with ATL. Downtown pretty much stinks. All the good dining etc. is in Midtown and Buckhead. As well as some great stuff outside the city in Decatur etc. I hated ATL before moving here as I'd only been downtown for conferences etc.
 
San Francisco is expensive but if you are trying to start a family you can live across the bay or down the peninsula. The weather is also a lot nicer than any of those east coast cities.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Is Boston really much colder than NYC? Serious question, I'm from New England.[/quote]

Yeah, it is really much colder and gets a lot more snow.

And yes Baltimore is a shithole.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Inner Harbor is nice, and Fell's Point is fun for nights out. But the rest of the city stinks. Best bet if you're stuck in the area is to live somewhere in between DC and Baltimore so you can enjoy both. Columbia, MD is pretty nice as far as suburbs go. Silver Spring isn't a bad option if you work in DC.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for cities comparing, not worth arguing since it's personal preference. But one area I'd suggest caution is most cities require more exploration. NYC everybody goes to Manhattan which is the best part. A lot of cities like Atlanta if you're down town for work, or a conference etc. you'll be disappointed as in a lot of cities the downtown business/hotel districts are pretty dead as everything has moved further out.

Definitely the case with ATL. Downtown pretty much stinks. All the good dining etc. is in Midtown and Buckhead. As well as some great stuff outside the city in Decatur etc. I hated ATL before moving here as I'd only been downtown for conferences etc.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Downtown Columbus is terrible. You need to go to the Short North to habe good tiems.
 
[quote name='javeryh']
Boston is OK but too cold. I hear San Fran is nice but the cost of living there is equal to NYC (if not more). Chicago is also nice but way too freaking cold. I've never been to Texas (although the houses on realtor.com make me drool). Atlanta is meh. Philly is a total and complete shithole with practically zero redeeming qualities (same with Baltimore). Raleigh isn't actually a city. The only city I've ever been to that comes close to offering what NYC offers is Paris. Everything else just doesn't cut it.[/QUOTE]

I love Chicago, but I have to agree that the weather there is insane. I'm currently living in Denver, and it's actually not too bad, probably not on par with NYC though, public transportation doesn't quite go everywhere.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Exactly. And by the same logic, someone making over $250K in North Dakota doesn't feel the tax increase as much as the guy making $250K in NYC. This is why people who appear to be making an "assload" of money complain about the tax increase. To me, the $250K threshold isn't high enough. If they set the bar at $750K or even $500K that would make a lot more sense.[/QUOTE]

Javeryh, if you can't make 250K work for you after losing the tax breaks you're currently enjoying, then you're doing it wrong.

I commend you for coming out with your opinion - my dream is to have every rich person start whining about losing their tax breaks. From the comments in the original article, it seems like nothing hammers reality into the brains of Americans like a bunch of Mary Antoinettes.
 
[quote name='camoor']Javeryh, if you can't make 250K work for you after losing the tax breaks you're currently enjoying, then you're doing it wrong.

I commend you for coming out with your opinion - my dream is to have every rich person start whining about losing their tax breaks. From the comments in the original article, it seems like nothing hammers reality into the brains of Americans like a bunch of Mary Antoinettes.[/QUOTE]

I never said I couldn't get by. I do more than OK. I just think applying an identical tax increase across the board for people everywhere in America making over $250K no matter where they live and without taking into consideration any other factors is completely ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Is Boston really much colder than NYC? Serious question, I'm from New England.

And yes Baltimore is a shithole.

Have you been to Seattle? If so, your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I've only been to the airport in Seattle, unfortunately (on my way to Sitka, Alaska which is beautiful and dirt cheap). Seattle seems like a great city from what I've heard.

Boston seems much colder to me. Most of my in-laws live up there and every time it rains in the winter here (NYC) it is snowing up there. It seems like my father-in-law does nothing but shovel snow in the winter - it would make me nuts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was thinking of fixing public schools, not so much financial aid etc. Upgrading school facilities and technology, getting good teachers to work in bad districts etc. etc. Has to be coupled with more merit based evaluation of public school teachers though.

And health care I was meaning move to universal health care.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, good luck on getting good teachers to work in bad districts. From what I heard from my teacher friend you have two situations. One is where the tenured educators get the best students, best salary, and cushiest positions. The other is where an educator is placed with the worse crop of students, paid poorly, and used as a whipping boy for poor student performance.

I know what you're saying about here in regards to merit for teachers, but I think there's a lot more restructuring that has to be done other than throwing money at the problem (And who tends to get this money? Certain departments that have the most political influence).

The worse students should be shuttled off to different schools that feature a more rigid, bootcamp-type of environment. Not everybody needs to be integrated into the general population, especially with teachers that aren't allowed to act as disciplinarians. This is a recipe for disaster...
 
[quote name='javeryh']I've only been to the airport in Seattle, unfortunately (on my way to Sitka, Alaska which is beautiful and dirt cheap). Seattle seems like a great city from what I've heard.

Boston seems much colder to me. Most of my in-laws live up there and every time it rains in the winter here (NYC) it is snowing up there. It seems like my father-in-law does nothing but shovel snow in the winter - it would make me nuts.[/QUOTE]

Ah, ok. I honestly didn't know. Yeah it sucks in winter in Boston, I just didn't realize there was much of a difference between NYC and Boston weather.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I never said I couldn't get by. I do more than OK. I just think applying an identical tax increase across the board for people everywhere in America making over $250K no matter where they live and without taking into consideration any other factors is completely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

But again, it's not different than the current situation. The increase is the same for everyone, so it's not like your tax burden relative to COLA gets any worse than it currently is.

People in a cheaper city are less hit by taxes relative to you now, and that won't change relatively as there's would go up by the same amount as yours!

Point being, the gap between how far their money goes and yours goes in NYC stays the same! You have X to spend after taxes etc. now, and they have Y to spend. After say a 3% increase you have X-3% to spend and they have Y-3% to spend. Nothing changes in terms of the amount of discretionary income you have relative to them!

So your point is silly.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, it isn't even Knoell's ideas, it's how he comes about them. "Well 25% of their income is more than 25% of a lower income!" No shit dude, we can handle basic math. We also know that taking 25% of $50k means taking someone's income down to $37.5k, big difference. $250k - 25% = $187.5K, oh my gosh how will they ever live?

I'm not even against people making large amounts of money, I'd like to be one myself some day, but I promise you all if it ever happens, I won't bitch about having to cut back on cleaning services or having to cut my own yard. Of course, I'd also be smart enough to not live beyond my means either.[/QUOTE]

Ok one more time I will multiply it out for you guys.

Someone making $50,000 will pay $8,681.25 in federal taxes. (no Clak, you can't do the math)
Using New York as an example, they will pay $3028.00 in state income taxes.
They will pay $3,100 in social security income tax.
They will pay $725 in medicare tax.

This will leave a person making $50,000 about $34,465.75.

Someone making $250,000 at a progressive rate through the brackets will pay $67616.75 in federal income taxes.
Using New York as an example, they will pay $17,228 in state income taxes.
They will pay $6,621 in social security income tax.
They will pay $3,625 in medicare income tax.

This will leave a person making $250,000 about $154,909.25.

Total Income $50,000 vs $250,000 = Total Taxes $15,534.25 vs $95,090.75 respectively.

It looks to me like the person making more is paying his share to the proportion of his income. Of course he can live comfortably on $154,909.25, but that is NOT a valid reason to tax him more.

And as usual you guys spread around the hate, saying I only have love for rich people, but I would be disputing anyone that said an increase of taxation on any other class is a good idea as well.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It looks to me like the person making more is paying his share to the proportion of his income. Of course he can live comfortably on $154,909.25, but that is NOT a valid reason to tax him more.[/quote]

Who says it isn't valid?

Who would you rather tax, the person not getting by comfortably?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Who says it isn't valid?

Who would you rather tax, the person not getting by comfortably?[/QUOTE]

Those people already don't pay federal taxes. Half the population off the bat don't pay any taxes at all and many of them actually get money from the government in refunds and credits.

How about the government actually spending within its means instead of pissing it away on useless reforms and programs? Just a wild suggestion.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Reminds of me of this couple who don't know how they're going to get by if the wife starts to work part-time and their income drops to "only" $100k:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/31/pf/work_only_part_time.moneymag/index.htm

Fark these morons.[/QUOTE]

That drives my ass up the wall. People just don't want to adjust their lifestyle.

I actually had this guy that worked for me this summer and went away to college this fall message me that he needs to borrow $700 dollars because his Mazda rX-8 uses special tires and he had been driving from Texas to Virginia to be with his girlfriend. I was like WTF? First, you have family to ask. Second, I am not going to subsidize your ability to see your girlfriend. That isn't my problem.

I swear people in this country need to stop expecting a right to live a certain way. I work my ass off and I don't make that much to be giving away to people. I don't have cable TV like all my friends and family, but guess who is the only one that actually owns his vehicle? Me. I don't own a home, but guess who rents an apartment and has a great credit score? Me. I don't have kids or more property that I need, but guess who isn't living check to check and has savings and 401k that is more than $20,000 (which isn't that much, but is way better than everyone else in my life)? Me.

I am so fucking tired of the people who think government and taxpayers like me should fund every fucking thing that people do. PLAN SOME OF YOUR fuckING THINGS IN LIFE.

Sorry about the rant, but people make me want to hurl sometimes.
 
It's amazing to me how so many people attach the evil rich for not adjusting their lifestyle and making changes to their spending and their way of thought to adjust for decreases in their income...

...yet the Federal Government shouldn't cut back on spending - in fact, should increase spending, keeping the same thought process they've had for so many years - when it's income is decreasing.

...and the poor people shouldn't have to adjust their lifestyle at all. You suggest they get rid of their cars, disconnect the cell phones, etc. and you're an evil monster.

It doesn't matter if you're rich, poor or the Federal Government, when your income decreases, so should your spending.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Who says it isn't valid?

Who would you rather tax, the person not getting by comfortably?[/QUOTE]

Why not decrease spending and stop living beyond our means and on the "rich". Edit: I even said it in the post you quoted, that I would argue against a tax increase for any class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dopa345']Those people already don't pay federal taxes. Half the population off the bat don't pay any taxes at all and many of them actually get money from the government in refunds and credits.
[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of families in the upper lower class, and lower middle class, who are paying taxes not offset by refunds and credits, not wasting money, and don't have much discretionary income after necessities. Especially in urban and suburban areas with high COLA.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Those people already don't pay federal taxes. Half the population off the bat don't pay any taxes at all and many of them actually get money from the government in refunds and credits.[/QUOTE]You're talking about people not paying income taxes. That's an important distinction to make so make it next time. And do you want to know what happens to that money that get "refunded" and in "credits?" It shoots right back to the top of the economic chain. You're focusing on one step when you should be focusing on the entire system.

[quote name='dopa345']How about the government actually spending within its means instead of pissing it away on useless reforms and programs? Just a wild suggestion.[/quote]
You mean like making cuts in education and other social programs that are gutted and not allowed to work? Or are you talking about the military industrial complex and rampant corporate welfare?

[quote name='Knoell']Ok one more time I will multiply it out for you guys.

Someone making $50,000 will pay $8,681.25 in federal taxes. (no Clak, you can't do the math)
Using New York as an example, they will pay $3028.00 in state income taxes.
They will pay $3,100 in social security income tax.
They will pay $725 in medicare tax.

This will leave a person making $50,000 about $34,465.75.

Someone making $250,000 at a progressive rate through the brackets will pay $67616.75 in federal income taxes.
Using New York as an example, they will pay $17,228 in state income taxes.
They will pay $6,621 in social security income tax.
They will pay $3,625 in medicare income tax.

This will leave a person making $250,000 about $154,909.25.

Total Income $50,000 vs $250,000 = Total Taxes $15,534.25 vs $95,090.75 respectively.

It looks to me like the person making more is paying his share to the proportion of his income. Of course he can live comfortably on $154,909.25, but that is NOT a valid reason to tax him more.

And as usual you guys spread around the hate, saying I only have love for rich people, but I would be disputing anyone that said an increase of taxation on any other class is a good idea as well.[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting these numbers for total taxes paid?

Btw, it's not really about being able to be taxed more and being able to maintain the lifestyle. It's really about the person benefiting more from his tax contributions than someone making less. A person making that kind of money doesn't make that kind of money because they do all the work themselves. There's a system in place that allows work to be refined to a point in which they make their own adjustments to it. Someone at the top needs an army of people to keep them there. You simply cannot have a successful anything without a proper base. It's a very simple concept that's fairly universal.

Oh, as for your love for your fellow working stiff? It's never shown up in this forum.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']That drives my ass up the wall. People just don't want to adjust their lifestyle.

I actually had this guy that worked for me this summer and went away to college this fall message me that he needs to borrow $700 dollars because his Mazda rX-8 uses special tires and he had been driving from Texas to Virginia to be with his girlfriend. I was like WTF? First, you have family to ask. Second, I am not going to subsidize your ability to see your girlfriend. That isn't my problem.[/QUOTE]
You're right it's not your problem. But it seems to me that if he was working for you, I'm fairly certain that you've probably made $700 from his labor or at least hiring a team of people. So don't get all high and mighty about it when you didn't give them a fair share of the profits from their labor.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']I swear people in this country need to stop expecting a right to live a certain way. I work my ass off and I don't make that much to be giving away to people. I don't have cable TV like all my friends and family, but guess who is the only one that actually owns his vehicle? Me. I don't own a home, but guess who rents an apartment and has a great credit score? Me. I don't have kids or more property that I need, but guess who isn't living check to check and has savings and 401k that is more than $20,000 (which isn't that much, but is way better than everyone else in my life)? Me.[/quote]
Things in which you were able to leverage due to education and the workers that help you make more money than you're able to on your own. You can also thank the infrastructure that is avaliable to you and your parents that were able to remove burdens from you and feed you right. Instead of having a house, you decided to have savings, a car, and a 401k. Sorry, you're not that special.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']I am so fucking tired of the people who think government and taxpayers like me should fund every fucking thing that people do. PLAN SOME OF YOUR fuckING THINGS IN LIFE.

Sorry about the rant, but people make me want to hurl sometimes.[/quote]
The government has actively disenfranchised and prohibited certain people from representation, education, and economic success through laws since it's inception to current day. Not everything is "personal choice." Why do you think you're so special? Do you think you're funding everything with your good decisions and feel like you're being punished? Sorry, you're just not that special.

[quote name='UncleBob']It's amazing to me how so many people attach the evil rich for not adjusting their lifestyle and making changes to their spending and their way of thought to adjust for decreases in their income...

...yet the Federal Government shouldn't cut back on spending - in fact, should increase spending, keeping the same thought process they've had for so many years - when it's income is decreasing.

...and the poor people shouldn't have to adjust their lifestyle at all. You suggest they get rid of their cars, disconnect the cell phones, etc. and you're an evil monster.

It doesn't matter if you're rich, poor or the Federal Government, when your income decreases, so should your spending.[/QUOTE]
"People that have the most shit get to say the least shit" -Chris Rock

[quote name='Knoell']Why not decrease spending and stop living beyond our means and on the "rich".[/QUOTE]
Or how about lets bring back the marginal tax rates for when the country was most prosperous? Or how about we roll back the tax rates to that commie socialist secret Kenyan Ronald Reagan?
 
Are you sure about that? If 50% of Americans don't pay income taxes and roughly 25% of Americans are considered "Lower Class", I'd find it hard to believe there are "plenty" of people in the lower class that find themselves paying income taxes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's amazing to me how so many people attach the evil rich for not adjusting their lifestyle and making changes to their spending and their way of thought to adjust for decreases in their income...

...yet the Federal Government shouldn't cut back on spending - in fact, should increase spending, keeping the same thought process they've had for so many years - when it's income is decreasing.

...and the poor people shouldn't have to adjust their lifestyle at all. You suggest they get rid of their cars, disconnect the cell phones, etc. and you're an evil monster.

It doesn't matter if you're rich, poor or the Federal Government, when your income decreases, so should your spending.[/QUOTE]

Here's the problem.

The people calling for the Federal Government to cut back spending aren't calling for them to cut back defense spending or end the two money-pit wars we are stuck in or close the extremely expensive overseas bases we have all over the world...they are calling for the elimination of social security, welfare, medicare, cutting public education funding/student aid, the privatization of the USPS. Basically anything that actually helps people stay afloat, gives everybody a safety net or helps people get ahead should be cut.

That is insane. It is the "fuck you, got mine/bootstraps, I DID EVERYTHING MYSELF" mentality the right has adopted (ironically, since alot of them aren't rich)

The federal government should be expanded. This country needs a single payer healthcare option. So bad.

I like how you want the poor to adjust their lifestyles as if they are already living high on the hog. Alot of the time, cell phone service is the only phone service they have. Most of the time, they only have cars in areas where it is a necessity (outside a big city with good public transportation). How bland and shitty do you want their lives to be so yours can be lavish and over the top?

Society is like moving. The bigger guys get stuck moving the furniture while the rest are handling boxes. "Boo hoo why do we get stuck doing the heavy lifting because we are strongest? We should be handling boxes and you should be moving the furniture. It's not fair I'm being punished for being in such good shape", that is the rich in this country.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']The people calling for the Federal Government to cut back spending aren't calling for them to cut back defense spending or end the two money-pit wars we are stuck in or close the extremely expensive overseas bases we have all over the world...they are calling for the elimination of social security, welfare, medicare, cutting public education funding/student aid, the privatization of the USPS. Basically anything that actually helps people stay afloat, gives everybody a safety net or helps people get ahead should be cut. [/quote]

Then support a g'dammed President that will cut military spending and end the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, wait... isn't that what Obama was supposed to do?

(ironically, since alot of them aren't rich)
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that? You make it sound like a bad thing, that a poor person doesn't want to force someone else into providing for them.

I like how you want the poor to adjust their lifestyles as if they are already living high on the hog. Alot of the time, cell phone service is the only phone service they have. Most of the time, they only have cars in areas where it is a necessity (outside a big city with good public transportation). How bland and shitty do you want their lives to be so yours can be lavish and over the top?
Click to expand...

Interesting proposal here. What percentage of one's life should they be forced to give up so that someone else's life style can be improved?

Society is like moving. The bigger guys get stuck moving the furniture while the rest are handling boxes. "Boo hoo why do we get stuck doing the heavy lifting because we are strongest? We should be handling boxes and you should be moving the furniture. It's not fair I'm being punished for being in such good shape", that is the rich in this country.
Click to expand...

Better yet, you've got a group of one hundred people moving into a building. Fifty of them set on the curb, not carrying a single box or piece of furniture in. Meanwhile, one guy has to carry in 40% of the stuff. Granted, 28% of the stuff is his - but he's being forced to carry a whole lot more, while those other 50 guys just sit and watch. And complain that he's not carrying enough.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're right it's not your problem. But it seems to me that if he was working for you, I'm fairly certain that you've probably made $700 from his labor or at least hiring a team of people. So don't get all high and mighty about it when you didn't give them a fair share of the profits from their labor.


Things in which you were able to leverage due to education and the workers that help you make more money than you're able to on your own. You can also thank the infrastructure that is avaliable to you and your parents that were able to remove burdens from you and feed you right. Instead of having a house, you decided to have savings, a car, and a 401k. Sorry, you're not that special.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry.

You aren't that special.

That student I had working for me comes from a family that has $1 million in assets and he was too embarrassed to ask them for help so he comes to me. Don't you ever tell me about fair share of profits. I don't have it like that. I am doing the work of two people because my bosses won't let me have more permanent help. This is despite the fact that our sales went up 30% last year. Did I mention I pay my temps at the highest hourly wage allowed by my company for their job classification and not minimum wage? Did I mention I am not even at mid-range for my payscale? I don't get overtime and often work 70 hours a week. Don't presume to tell me I didn't give a fair share of anything when I did all that I could AND was undermanned. I'm a grunt, not a CEO. I did the same temp work before I ever got to my position and I still do it now.

Remove burdens? My parents were terrible with money. They filed bankruptcy and we were homeless. Don't you ever presume to tell me anything about what I have been through. I know what it is like to not know where you next meal is coming from AS A CHILD. I promised myself I would never be as irresponsible as my mother was with money AS AN ADULT. I know for a fact that a lot of what happens to a person is based on personal choice. I've seen it first hand. Are some things out of a person's control? Sure. But I speak from experience that people need to think further into the future than what they do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then support a g'dammed President that will cut military spending and end the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, wait... isn't that what Obama was supposed to do?[/QUOTE]

Nobody will run on that (shit just look at the response Obama got when he is far from that) and no, that isn't what Obama was suppose to do. He said he would get us out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. Which we are doing.

[quote name='UncleBob']What's wrong with that? You make it sound like a bad thing, that a poor person doesn't want to force someone else into providing for them.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with that? It's working against their own interest in the hopes that eventually they will be one of the beautiful people...if only they keep their nose to the grindstone a little bit longer.

That's the ironic part. My friend is a big Glenn Beck fan who spouts off fun stuff like "That's America. If you work hard or have a great idea, you can move up regardless of your standing. If that janitor just works hard or comes up with a great idea, he can be a millionaire. It's not fair to punish the rich for being successful. They earned that money, they should be able to keep all of it." Which is funny because A) he's implying that poor people are that way because they are lazy/stupid and B) he's a fucking 40+ year old UPS driver. That's not a bad job and he's able to support himself/his family but by his own logic he's either lazy or stupid since he hasn't made any movement job wise in 20+ years. He works hard, he has a bad back as a result; Why hasn't he been rewarded by moving up the UPS ladder?

[quote name='UncleBob']Interesting proposal here. What percentage of one's life should they be forced to give up so that someone else's life style can be improved? [/QUOTE]

Better question. Why do you expect the have-nots should while the haves shouldn't?

Or like that article I posted earlier said.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.
Click to expand...

--------

[quote name='UncleBob']Better yet, you've got a group of one hundred people moving into a building. Fifty of them set on the curb, not carrying a single box or piece of furniture in. Meanwhile, one guy has to carry in 40% of the stuff. Granted, 28% of the stuff is his - but he's being forced to carry a whole lot more, while those other 50 guys just sit and watch. And complain that he's not carrying enough.[/QUOTE]

lol you are delusional
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Why not decrease spending and stop living beyond our means and on the "rich".[/quote]

Because that is a stupid idea and even stupider in times of recession.

There is no feasible way to cut spending like that knoell, I figured you already knew this because you avoid any questions concerning anything but the vaguest pablum like the plague.

It is exactly what Krugman talked about, the Republicans have zero actual ideas and the same goes for the tea party.

P.s. I don't care if you would rather tax nobody, I asked who you would rather pay more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dopa345']Those people already don't pay federal taxes. Half the population off the bat don't pay any taxes at all and many of them actually get money from the government in refunds and credits.

How about the government actually spending within its means instead of pissing it away on useless reforms and programs? Just a wild suggestion.[/QUOTE]

It is a wild suggestion. A wild, unfactual, idiotic, knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip suggestion.

Homework assignment for you: look up how much America is spending on the two foreign wars. Then compare that to the cost of every single social program out there added together. You can come back when you have the answer.
 
I found this while searching for an Uncle Ruckus picture.

TrunksCustomUncleRuckus.jpg


:rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top