"Patriotic millionaires" call for their tax cuts to expire

[Reverend Rick]

Ummm...what? How is it not harder to spend $1.3 million in a year than $50,000?

No one calls you when you make 50,000

Car dealers leave cars for you to drive for the weekend.

Boat dealers take you out for the weekend

Plane dealers fly you places

Charities bombard you

I'm telling you Matt, I could not leave my easy chair and spend 1.3 million.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Being fair is also an important part of judging a tax rate. Warren Buffett has said why should he pay a lower rate of Taxes then his secretary. It should be remembered that tax dedications of the rich pushes down the percentage of taxes they pay. I have well off family members that make lots of money and pay at a lower percentage of income then I make. Not that I am complaining I have a very comfortable life.

 

[Magic Man]

No one calls you when you make 50,000

Car dealers leave cars for you to drive for the weekend.

Boat dealers take you out for the weekend

Plane dealers fly you places

Charities bombard you

I'm telling you Matt, I could not leave my easy chair and spend 1.3 million.

And regardless of all that, it's still harder to spend $1.3 million than it is to spend $50,000. But you're also missing the real point of my comment. You said people making $50,000 spend all their money and go into debt whereas people making $1.3 million don't. Well duh. You can buy a house, two cars and everything else you need outright with $1.3 million, and not have any monthly payments at all. It's pretty tough to buy a house for $50,000, much less a car and all of the other things you need.

This is because things are geared towards the rich. It goes back to the fact that the top 1% have seen their salaries skyrocket while the middle class has just barely inched up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being fair is also an important part of judging a tax rate. Warren Buffett has said why should he pay a lower rate of Taxes then his secretary.

True dat. Her rate should be lowered. I've been railing against high marginal tax rates for low wage earners for years.
It's even worse than just taxation. As they increase their income, they also lose gov't benefits. This is very discouraging.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your ignoring the fact that the top 1% did not spend every dime they made on personal expenditures. They took risks. They worked harder and longer than anyone else.

The 40-60% range folks went home on time, took the weekend off and spent time with their family. They failed to save and invest for the future. Many lived beyond their means and incurring a large amount of debt along the way.

********! The top 1% does NOT work nearly as hard those under the 60% mark. Think roofing vs. banking, landscaping vs. Wall Street investing. 12 hours a day in hot (or cold in the winter), dirty, dusty warehouse vs. 8 hours in the air conditioned/heated and clean offices of the warehouse. When I was working at Dollar General's warehouse, it was filled with people who were working 50 to 60 hours a week, and most of us were not making more than $20,000 a year. That is not going home early but very late, and working so long and hard that you are too tired to enjoy the weekend. Oh, and as for saving and investing, what is there to save when you have a family and only make $20,000? I will admit I can live comfortably on that, but I do not have any kids.

No it's not! :no:

Uhm, yes it is. $50,000 will get me by for 2 or 3 years. $1.3 million would see me through college without working or taking out loans, would pay the bills, and I would still have money left over even after I an done with school. Now if I wasn't going to school, that $1.3 million could be stretched out over the course of most of my life.

Just because a rich person can afford something does not mean they will purchase it unlike the 40-60% person who spends every penny they make and more.

Ok, even though I know plenty of people who are under the 50% margin who are good enough at saving that they are living a good retirement, I myself save when I can but it usually goes away over extra expenses, such as doctor bills and school bills.
It sounds like the arguments of the middle class during the mid-1800's, that the poor are poor because they aren't making the same thrifty decisions, even though the poor working class then simply was not making enough to get anywhere with it. Which is still the case today. Not everyone who is poor is bad with finances, is lazy, refuses to work over time or come in a day off, and blows their money on personal stuff. My dad for example. He is under the 60%, yet he has been working 12-13 hour shifts, and he has Neuropathy to the point he cannot feel from his elbows down/knees down. To dismiss half of the American households like that is to insult people like my dad who have the best work ethic you will find, and have thousands saved up in the bank.

 

[Revoltingest]

********! The top 1% does NOT work nearly as hard those under the 60% mark. Think roofing vs. banking, landscaping vs. Wall Street investing. 12 hours a day in hot (or cold in the winter), dirty, dusty warehouse vs. 8 hours in the air conditioned/heated and clean offices of the warehouse.

If you tried to rise thru the ranks where you work in order to get that cushy exec job, you'd find that you must work smarter & harder than your peers.
I've hired many blue collar types. When they arrived at work, I was already there. When they left, I was still there. Many thought I had it easy, making
money off their labor, but they were the ones who didn't work past midnite, took no risks, & even got paid while goofing off or stealing from my tenants.
Sure, sure, some of the poor work hard, but the real rewards are for working hard & smart. Life is cruel that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being fair is also an important part of judging a tax rate. Warren Buffett has said why should he pay a lower rate of Taxes then his secretary. It should be remembered that tax dedications of the rich pushes down the percentage of taxes they pay. I have well off family members that make lots of money and pay at a lower percentage of income then I make. Not that I am complaining I have a very comfortable life.

Good point.

I don't know all the arcane details of US tax laws, but I know that here, there are deductions available to the wealthy that aren't available to others.

Recently, the Canadian Revenue Agency changed the rules about donations of stock: now, if you donate stock (and other securities? Can't remember) to a charity, you get credited with a deduction based on the full value of the shares, but you don't pay any capital gains tax on the increase in value from when you bought them to when you give them away. Depending on how your stock did over this period, this can mean that you get a tax credit for much more than the normal 20% of what you paid when you first bought the stock.

If you don't have the disposable income to buy a bunch of shares and sit on them for a few years, then this option is unavailable to you. Effectively, it's a tax deduction that's only available to the wealthy.

And that's on top of the differential treatment for charitable donations that they had all along: you get 13% back on your first $200 of donations per year, but get 20% back on the portion over and above $200. IOW, if you always give the same percentage of your income to charity, then the more you make, the larger a percentage of your donation the government gives you back.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is because things are geared towards the rich. It goes back to the fact that the top 1% have seen their salaries skyrocket while the middle class has just barely inched up.

Go to the gym. Some guys have more muscles than other too.

Of course things are geared towards the rich. Who do you think made the rules?

 

[Magic Man]

If you tried to rise thru the ranks where you work in order to get that cushy exec job, you'd find that you must work smarter & harder than your peers. I've hired many blue collar types. When they arrived at work, I was already there. When they left, I was still there. Many thought I had it easy, making money off their labor, but they were the ones who didn't work past midnite, took no risks, & even got paid while goofing off or stealing from my tenants. Sure, sure, some of the poor work hard, but the real rewards are for working hard & smart. Life is cruel that way.

Yes, but some people can't work smart. People should not be punished for not being as smart as others or for not having as savvy a business sense as others. We need roofers, construction workers and others, too. Not everyone is going to own a business or be a manager. The people who aren't should still be able to expect a decent-to-pretty good living. It's fine to have to work hard and smart to get rich. I expect that. But to just live a comfortable life, you shouldn't have to work smart.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course things are geared towards the rich. Who do you think made the rules?

This is my point. This is what needs to change. If you agree on this, it should follow that you agree on my other points.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My biggest concern is the banks locked the barn after the horse was stolen. If you have a doctor that has borrowed seven times from you before and never missed a payment, why would you deny his 8th request for a builders loan?

Less money available to lend, so he goes further back in the queue than the guy who's borrowed 20 times and never missed a payment, maybe?

The answer, regulation. Bank officers are scared to do anything because they don't fully grasp the new regs. One officer told me, "I'm not denying your loan, I'm just not approving it yet". She told me in the old days if you wrote a loan and it went south, you might get fired. Now she says there is a possibility that she could go to prison if the new protocol is not followed.

So... the response after the crash has been heavy-handed? I don't think this necessarily implies that better regulation before the crash wouldn't have been a good idea.

Another problem we have is the DIR, (debt to income ratio). Real estate is appraised lower so the number has fell making the loans less attractive.

But why is real estate appraised lower? Isn't it because you haven't fully recovered from the bursting of the real estate bubble, which was largely caused by all the shenanigans with mortgage-backed securities? Again, this points toward better regulation, IMO.

Maybe things are too tight now, but I think it's a response to the previous situation where things weren't tight enough. If regulation is at a reasonable level in the first place, then I think it helps to prevent these kinds of major swings.

 

[Magic Man]

But why is real estate appraised lower? Isn't it because you haven't fully recovered from the bursting of the real estate bubble, which was largely caused by all the shenanigans with mortgage-backed securities? Again, this points toward better regulation, IMO.

Actually, real estate isn't appraised that low. It's only appraised low relative to the period between 2002 and 2007 when prices went way up. We bought our house last year and paid $200,000. The same house back in 2001 would have been in the $130-140,000 range. Obviously that's also a difference of 8 years during which you'd expect prices to rise a bit, but not by that much. Of course the same house in 2006 would probably have gone for close to $300,000. So, relative to 2006, it is priced low now, but not relative to a few years before that.

 

[Reverend Rick]

To dismiss half of the American households like that is to insult people like my dad who have the best work ethic you will find, and have thousands saved up in the bank.

Shadow, I would make you a bet your father and I would get along great with each other. It sounds to me like we hold the same values. I grew up poor and started work when I was 16 working minimum wage jobs. When I was 19, I got drafted. I did not go to college until I was 30. I got the scratch to start a business after I went to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait working as a contractor. I did not see my family for over a year. My hands are knurled, my knees are about to go and I have cancer.

I have always worked long hours and helped folks less fortunate than myself.

I'm not greedy or evil. I damn sure don't think I am better than anyone.

The government has screwed me all my life. I did not want to fight in a war. I am a kind and gentle soul.

I get the most out of every dollar I make. Some call me a cheap skate. The thing is, I would rather spend my money helping folks in my community than give the money to an ungrateful arrogant wasteful government that has no clue how to fix what is wrong with this country.

For every guy out there like your Dad, there is four others who have made poor life choices. You know the people I am talking about, we see them every day.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, real estate isn't appraised that low. It's only appraised low relative to the period between 2002 and 2007 when prices went way up. We bought our house last year and paid $200,000. The same house back in 2001 would have been in the $130-140,000 range. Obviously that's also a difference of 8 years during which you'd expect prices to rise a bit, but not by that much. Of course the same house in 2006 would probably have gone for close to $300,000. So, relative to 2006, it is priced low now, but not relative to a few years before that.

While that could be the trend in your area, it is not universal. Prices here are well below 2001 values.

 

[Magic Man]

While that could be the trend in your area, it is not universal. Prices here are well below 2001 values.

Yeah, I actually meant to add that part. I do realize that other areas' housing markets have had different results.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, but some people can't work smart. People should not be punished for not being as smart as others or for not having as savvy a business sense as others. We need roofers, construction workers and others, too. Not everyone is going to own a business or be a manager. The people who aren't should still be able to expect a decent-to-pretty good living. It's fine to have to work hard and smart to get rich. I expect that. But to just live a comfortable life, you shouldn't have to work smart.

That wraps it up in a nut shell. When I grew up, there was no air conditioning, cable TV, internet, or cell phones. We had only one car in the drive way and my father made good money with a union scale job he worked 36 years.

He retired when he was 55 because he saved and invested. He is in his 80's now and still plays golf every day.

Matt thinks you should be able to work stupid and still live a comfortable life.

I'm telling you, you young whipper snappers would have starved if you where born a 100 years ago.

Did I mention that we had to walk to school in the snow uphill both ways?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did I mention that we had to walk to school in the snow uphill both ways?

I spend much of my professional life trying to deal with the traffic problems that result from the tendency of modern parents to drive their children to school instead of letting them walk a few hundred yards.

I've had elementary school principals tell me that when it snows, every student at their school gets driven.

It's crazy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you tried to rise thru the ranks where you work in order to get that cushy exec job, you'd find that you must work smarter & harder than your peers.

That doesn't consider the fact that some people who get promotions get them because they are good at kissing up, or other reasons that they didn't deserve them over others. At one of my last jobs, I had the job of running the computer and keeping track of inventory data and doing recounts. Now most people assumed my job was difficult, partly because I was always busy, and because I would hardly do any extra work because it would put me so far behind. Even though I worked longer hours, had do deal with angry customers, and had to plow through piles of paper work, I can admit my job wasn't that hard. I got to sit at a desk rather than walking around and getting up and down from the floor, I didn't have customers breathing down my neck and trying to find an inaccurate count, and I didn't have to worry about a productivity rate (I just had to have the paper work finished within a half hour of the end of an inventory). At some jobs I have tried, but for various reasons I didn't get the promotion. One promotion that I did want went to a guy who kissed so much butt that his breath smelled like crap. One of my previous bosses got his job because he drinking buddies with the corporate president. This has also protected his job in spite of an extremely high shrink and turnover rate that has not improved since I last worked there about five years ago.
In my experience, it has been luck or kissing up. Because even when all but a couple coworkers would have no problem working under you, it tends not matter much when the person who is going to get the promotion is giving the boss a blow job in the office. That's partly why I want my own clinic after I graduate, so I don't have to deal with all b.s.
And with my roofing example, a banker does not work harder than someone who does roofing for a living. It just doesn't happen. The banker isn't going to get blisters and calloused hands, isn't going to be dead tired and sore at the end of the work day, isn't exposed directly to the elements, isn't doing back-breaking labor, and isn't walking on an inclined slope all day. And again, we are talking about people who make over one million dollars in one year, not the small business owner who is getting headaches over projects that are nearing their deadlines. Small businesses are important. One of my friend's dads has his own construction company, and he has went as far as Oklahoma for work. He hires people, busts his balls to make deadlines, and he isn't worried about taxes. Now when you look at someone who makes millions every year, doing I don't know what because I have met head Loss Preventions and managers from various store chains, such as Target, who are sent around the nation to keep the stores functioning properly and verifying inventory and are dealing with the stress of being away from home all the time and they aren't even making close to a million. I fully get being paid more for hard work and sacrifices. Afterall I'm going to college for a Ph.D. to make alot of money doing things I want to be doing. But there is a difference in being paid for the work you do, and work you have done in the past, and not really contributing and just sitting on your *** and pulling in more money by your lunch break than what some will make in a year.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't consider the fact that some people who get promotions get them because they are good at kissing up, or other reasons that they didn't deserve them over others.

That sometimes happens. But in my experience, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Life isn't fair, even in non-free market economies. There's even nepotism in N Korea.

And with my roofing example, a banker does not work harder than someone who does roofing for a living. It just doesn't happen.

I presume that you're not talking about just bankers, but rather about all such executives. I've never met a roofer who works as hard as Mrs Rev.
Sure, she gets no blisters working a 60 hour week, but she must juggle multiple projects, give performance reviews, fire people, etc, etc, often
without enuf time to even stop for lunch. I know many roofers, & their work is nothing worse than the manual labor I do for fun. Physical labor
is merely one type of work, one which many people prefer. Moreover, rewards should not be based upon how much one thinks one suffers relative
to another. You generally gotta do something of higher relative value to get the extra bucks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For every guy out there like your Dad, there is four others who have made poor life choices. You know the people I am talking about, we see them every day.

That's true, but it's really unfair to dismiss 60% of all American households as being like this. Young adults aren't going to make money because of a lack of education and experience. This does not reflect life choices, it simply reflects facts. People from Chrysler and Delphi here have been laid off and fired, and have soaked up many retail and fast food jobs. These people never made it above the 60% mark, and where moved even lower not because of life choices, but circumstances out of there control. As for everyone else, the jobs are gone and it's life, not choices, that have so many people in this area being poor. It's so bad that even McDonalds has become a pretty good place to work for because for many it's the only place to work for.
Actually during I believe the 90's if I remember the charts right, my dad would have been over the 60% mark working at Chrysler. But today making a few more dollars on the hour for regular pay alone, even working all the overtime he can get his income is now below the 60% because the rate in which the top 10%, even just the top 1% alone, have gotten money has grown so much that it shifted the percentages. And also, the economic boom of the early 2000's was the only economic boom in U.S. history in which the median income declined. It is definitely a problem when 10% of Americans control over 70% of the money, while half of us only control 2.5%. This includes the skilled, schooled, and unskilled, and unschooled alike. There is one guy who works at the school I'm going to, he has a master's degree in advertising and a bachelors in something, and his income is at the projected level for someone with an associate's degree.

The people who aren't should still be able to expect a decent-to-pretty good living. It's fine to have to work hard and smart to get rich. I expect that. But to just live a comfortable life, you shouldn't have to work smart.

This is true. School can be hard, and starting a business, even on a very small scale, is a gamble. And there are some people who love working in retail and fast food. Why should they live a life of poverty for doing what they want, which even such a low position is still a needed position for our society to function. But even jobs that require schooling and training will sometimes pay wages that are just not livable. But then again, in Indiana at least, minimum wage will still allow you qualify for many welfare programs, and if you have a kid working minimum wage will allow you to qualify for pretty much all of them. Even making four dollars above minimum wage will still not be enough money to disqualify a family from receiving welfare.