We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

20 Trillion wrote:

Another very interesting thing i've noticed in this thread.

Every single person calling out the OP in this thread is telling him that he needs to SPEND LESS money. Not one single person has advocated that he go out and make more.

If so many people realize that SPENDING LESS is the solution for families with tight budgets, then why can we not agree that cutting the federal budget has to be the main way of solving the debt crisis?

Why not? Because the federal budget is nothing like a family budget. The government has to spend to keep the economy going, and when its spending creates jobs, those jobs create tax revenue, paying the government back for its original investment (while also giving people a bit more dignity that some shrill call to just SPEND LESS). And, anyhow, when's the last time some family in your neighborhood repaved the streets or bought new textbooks for the local school?

How is invading/occupying other countries protecting national interests? With the stockpile of armaments/bombs/missiles etc. the US could have selectively bombed the hell out of Afghanistan & Iraq if GW Bush wanted to "effectively" curb those countries.

Military spending is a form of welfare.....yes????

250K= around 50-60K in taxes wrote:

Why do we NEED to raise revenues?

Because every economist - including conservatives - have said that we cannot put our financial house in order without a combination spending cuts and tax increases. It simply cannot be done.

don't tax the rich wrote:

Does anyone else ever get tired of hearing Obama talk about taxing the rich? He mentions millionaires/billionaires in the same breath as those making $250,000/year.

$250,000/year is NOT rich... blah, blah, blah.

Funny how runners and coaches who are so fact-driven when it comes to training volumes and microcycles and VO2max percentages can rely so heavily on hearsay and conjecture when it comes to economics. Strange, and a bit sad when it devolves into hatemongering. Anyhow, here's a clear look at tax rates and income over the past 65 years: graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

This report by the nonpartisan CRS was suppressed by Mitch McConnell and others in September. They objected to its findings, which don't exactly correspond to their narrative, and worried that it might unduly affect the presidential election in November. How'd that election work out for you, Mitch?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

[quote]I agree with the OP wrote:

Get married, have children, and come back on here and say this exact sentence. You can't.

This is arrogance, this assumption that every married breadwinner and father all agree on this. Off the top of my head, I know married father of four with a mortgage whose household income is slightly under the OP's, and he supports Obama through and through. I know another married father with a mortgage who makes what the OP makes a few times over, and he supports Obama through and through, even though his household income taxes will rise under Obama's plan. So don't think you speak for everyone in your lot.

I agree with the OP wrote:

5 insurances to be paid, etc.

Jeff, he said he would gladly double his taxes. I said if he has a wife and kids, he'd think twice before saying that again.

I understand paying taxes and why we should. But if you really look into where some of that money goes, it will disgust you. Take a walk on the southwest side of Chicago. Thousands and thousands of families over there live off the government. It's a joke. I understand some people, but the majority take advantage of it.

Here's one for you. My best friend from college lost his job last October (2011). He got unemployment @ 50% of his old salary - tax free obviously. He hasn't interviewed one since. He's got them extended not once, not twice, but three times! He's a 29year old, perfectly capable guy that graduated from a top 10 business school in America. His point, any job he finds right now probably won't pay him that much more than he's making from the government. So it's crazy for him to look for a job, when he can get full unemployment up to 99 weeks! Think about that. He lives in a 1br in LP, has a car, phone, all the bells and whistles and basically does nothing for over a year now and has no plans to start even looking until this runs out. That's what's wrong with our society and your taxes are paying for him to do this.

Just find more deductions to take advantage of

He never said anything about "strapped for cash", and he never said anything about starting out at 250,000. He said that due to potential increases in taxes, it would make it difficult for him to save for retirement and pay for his children's college, which by the way is very admirable because he is actually paying money for their college instead of just applying for grant money to get his kids a college tuition because he "doesn't make enough" or might we say, didn't plan well and get a high paying job so that he COULD pay for their college? When someone starts at the bottom and works their *55 off to earning 250,000 I think that maybe they are entitled to his/her own earnings instead of being taxed back into the middle class. If it doesn't pay to earn yourself out of the middle class, why would anyone want to try? We all live by the same rules, if someone wants to make that amount, they should have planned and worked towards that level of position. If anyone is earning 250K, there is no way that he made poor decisions along the line. He never said anything about bankruptcy. Maybe you should go point your finger at Antoine Walker for awhile, he blew a hundred million and now owes 2 times that amount.

TLW wrote:

This has nothing to do with jealousy. If you are strapped for cash on 250k a year you made poor decisions somewhere along the line. PERIOD.

I don't think you understand how taxes would impact you (read: they won't).

another point against the OP is that if he has been saving as he should be, interest and dividends should add another $20-30k.

YOu could argue that those should be reinvested, but that's cash money.

"Taxed back to the middle class"? What's your definition of the middle class?

Nobody making 250K will be "taxed back to the middle class" under ANY proposed tax plan.

I agree with the OP wrote:

...I guess we just grew up in different environments. My parents took care of college expenses, car insurance, etc. I understand both sides, but that's what I will do as well.

They never said go to U of I because it's $15k a year cheaper, instead make your own choice. Call it stupid, but I call that normal.

If you're a Dad, and you chose to make these sacrifices for your kid(s) that's fine, but by doing so you give up the right to bitch about being broke or being persecuted by society. As several posters have already pointed out, you're not doing your kids any favors or providing incentives to value money or work. You're also just making straight up poor financial decisions. You're choosing to spend a boatload of money for no other reason other than to be hero-dad, and you're more likely to get a poor return on your investment because you're teaching your kids to be entitled to things the real world out there will not provide. Not to mention that the cost of an education wasn't nearly the same back when our parents could provide. You're dealing with an entirely different cost/benefit structure. Don't let facts and reality get in the way of your decisions though.

This thread has been an entertaining read to start my morning. Many humorous posts. My favorite type of posts, by far, are the "you dug your grave and will reap what you sow; the world will end and I will be okay but you will writhe in agony, and rightfully so", or "you've pushed me and my producer buddies too far and we are leaving". Gets a chuckle from me every time.

Carry on.

There is an idealogical split in this argument that is never going to be resolved.

The true progressives in this thread clearly have a problem with the OP and others with similar incomes passing their wealth on to their children. They whine about how he has too many kids, he is spoiling them, and that he doesn't need to pay for all of their college educations. These progressives would like to see the OP taxed to the point that he can provide very little advantages for his children compared to an "average" family. The progressives think its wrong for privilege to be passed from generation to generation.

The conservatives feel that the OP has earned the right to pass some benefits on to his children. If he has been able to save some money up during his life then he should be able to pass that wealth on, so that his children can have a better life. Conservatives also believe their should be some benefit to the higher salary they have worked for. Having your higher salary wiped out by taxes defeats the purpose of trying to get ahead.

+1

willisiowa wrote:

Anyhow, here's a clear look at tax rates and income over the past 65 years: graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

This report by the nonpartisan CRS was suppressed by Mitch McConnell and others in September. They objected to its findings, which don't exactly correspond to their narrative, and worried that it might unduly affect the presidential election in November.

Wait, are you bringing facts and impartial analysis into the discussion? Is that allowed here?

Here is the ideological difference in tax policy:

Conservatives believe:

My salary comes from providing a service/product/etc to someone who willingly pays for it. Society wants that service/product/etc. otherewise I wouldnt have a job. If others desired to have my job and were capable of having it, they would. Ergo, I earned the money I made bc I have inherent value. No one has the right to tell me how much of that money I deserve to keep. Keeping track of who deserves what is an absurd, impossible task to do fairly.

Liberals believe:

You may have earned that money, however you received help from others to make that money AND you have a societal obligation to help out the less fortunate. Societies and small groups (ie families, neighborhoods etc) create wealth, not individuals alone and therefore no individual can say "This is my money and I should be able to do with it as I please."

Pick your side snd understand why both arguments and advocate of each side have truth and merit.

+1

Neb wrote:

If you think that paying a 39% marginal tax rate is the same as being a slave - you need to do a little reading up on slavery.

Medieval serfs paid only 25% of their incomes to their lords. If only a successful person in modern day America could be as lucky as a medieval serf!

All income taxation is slavery. To impose a 39% marginal tax rate is to enslave me for 39% of my working life. The fact that the rates are higher elsewhere is utterly irrelevant and only proves how bad the state of the world is.

Why don't you just make LESS so you aren't taxed as much? Idiot.

Jeez, the guy wrote a post on a running website venting a little and everyone tore him apart for being too privileged. The fact remains that we don't know anything about the OP's life. I've just been trying to say that I understand what he's going through. Obviously I don't feel 'sorry' for him. But I totally understand his points. $250k is not a lot of money in some areas, it's just not.

I also believe the point of being a dad IS to make sacrifices for your wife/kids/family. So we can agree to disagree on that.

I came out of college with $0 debt because of my parents and I turned out pretty well. I never felt entitled. Everyone grows up in a different environment. Because of my parents, I feel like I got a huge head start after college. I didn't have to worry about paying back loans. I started off making nothing ($30k) and after a few years was easily making north of $100k. Would things have been different if I put myself through college? Absolutely. I wouldn't have gone out-of-state for sure. My education wouldn't have been as good. So I think it's a definite ADVANTAGE that my parents took care of all my educational costs.

What?!

Your whole post was about "rich" people. You are the one who was focusing on people's wealth and stating: they are rich BECAUSE they are smart, end of story. And I proved you wrong. Now you are trying to do some dance to get out of your own words. Not working.

Firstly, many rich people, whether they be financial giants who received gov't bailouts, or mega-farms or big oil or big pharma who have received huge gov't subsidies or great tax preferences or sweetheart deals have indeed asked and had you (i.e., the gov't, since they get their $ from you or me) to "pay their bills". Pretty funny that you are unaware of that. (whether you support that or not, is irrelevant. It is the reality you chose to ignore, and you'd rather complain about minimum wage moochers).

Secondly, your post/quote that I challenged was nothing about that (whether or not rich people ask others to pay their way. try and stay focused). I was challenging your typical right wing nonsense, blanket statement that rich people are rich because they are smart. This is simply not true. Just as all poor people are not lazy and dumb. But I know, it's easy to play class warfare the way you are, because justifies the "cut taxes for the rich" right wing agenda.

1) Paris Hilton "developed her TALENTS" ??? How, by being an heiress and acting like an idiot and slut?

2) The walton family, who inherited more $ than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined "developed their talents" ?

3) Shaq O'Neal, who is as big as many on the planet (if you combine height and pure muscle size), had to work really hard to become a great basketball player?? The guy was born that way. He didn't f' it up, but c'mon, he was BORN an NBA player (or a pro football player if he wanted).

These are just a few examples. You said people are rich because they are smart. I've proven you wrong. Many are rich because they are born with insane one in a trillion talent or body, and some are just born rich, period. You honestly don't get that??

TRUMP??? lol. the guy may have done some smart business moves, but he proves how stupid he is every time he opens his mouth.

Again, I've proven to you that the circumstances of one's birth (wealth-wise and genetics-wise) plays a a huge role in why some become wealthy and why some do not. You said it was all about intelligence (which is also god-given in many ways, but we won't get into that now), and I have shown, without a doubt, that it often is not. Yet you cling to this nonsense still? Wow. You are ignorant (ignoring reality), plain and simple.

Lastly I am not envious of these people in the least, don't be idiotic. I am also quite wealth, likely much more than you. Most of it was achieved through luck, not intelligence. Is Warren Buffet envious of of rich people??? He support raising taxes on rich people, so I guess he must be. And I guess that goes Alan Greenspan and many other wealthy people who support dropping the Bush Tax cuts.

You've proven yourself to be a very ignorant and naive person if you think, AS YOU HAVE STATED, that wealthy people are inherently and absolutely smarter than poorer people. You should really stick to the libertarian argument:" I don't care about dumb and lucky the average rich person is: it's their $, so they should get to keep (almost) all of it. That's life. " I don't agree with that, but it at least it has some sort of consistent "logic" to it, unlike your statement.