Coming to a theater near you, October 2012.

[Cold_Zero]

The only problem with that statement is that during the Clinton Administration, with help from the Congress, we had a balanced budget that has a budget surplus. So that kind of throws the crazy Republican spending notion out the window, at least for that time period.

[stebo0728]

Thanks, your fixes were appropriate. I wasnt playing a game there, I guess that just how I'm used to talking. But yes the problem is OURS and WE have to fix it.

[R/T Hemi]

Got to love you guys.

Movie about Seals = crooked actors = tax statistics = successful med school student.

I'm admittedly poor at math, but I'll take your word that this is a balanced equation.

Not a complaint, just an observation. From now on I'll post a monthly mini rant thread. Maybe following Greg's cycle. (Sorry Greg)

<3 you guys. Oh, and congrats on your accomplishment Helio. Go into psychiatry and move to Arizona, you'll get rich.

[Cold_Zero]

Sorry for hijacking your thread, maybe we need to call HRT to take it back?

[mattblancarte]

Real estate cheat
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Tax cheat
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/ ... 2J20101119

1. Obama bought a house using slightly shady, yet legal tactics. No conviction, no imprisonment.

2. Wesley Snipes evades $38 million tax liability. Convicted, imprisonment, etc.

Having one slightly shady (but for all intents and purposes, legal) real estate deal under your belt is not similar to evading $38 million in tax liability.

One is a convicted felon, the other is not.

Am I wrong?

[szh]

if i cut back on my eating out 100% it wont cover my lingering 400k in graduate school debt. so to say that i should, is a ridiculous premise.

But, combined with your salary increases when you make it as a Doctor, it will help you pay it off faster.

In any case, if I was not clear, let me repeat: I did not say that spending should be cut back 100% on any one or two given items. It should be rationally cut across the board as necessary to make it all work.

Indeed, every spending event should be reviewed to see if it has some slack that can be reduced and/or the spending event can be delayed till it makes sense to do.

My personal story - if you will bear with being bored a bit:

I am a lot older than you, so my college debt was much lower when I graduated. But, in the ten years that I took to pay it off, I did forego and delay big expenses to make sure that I had the money to pay off the loans.

My first car was not a luxury vehicle - I spent $5500 on a Ford Fiesta, with a loan that I paid off quickly too. House purchase is just another example ... I waited eight years to do that - particularly since I also wanted/needed to save up the 20% down-payment. I have previously described how we now buy cars - new - with cash, by saving for it rather than taking out loans.

Most importantly, I refused to allow my credit card debt to go up at all in those early years - the interest rates on those are insane to say the least. So, if I could not afford something, I simply did not buy it.

In much later years, I did let my credit card bills get out of hand a bit, because I was trying to start a company. And I can assure you that that experience was scary as hell! It took me four or five years of belt-tightening to get everything paid off after I folded the company.

And now, I can say once again: the ONLY regular debt we have is a monthly house mortgage - everything else is paid for when we get it. And, even on the mortgage, I am at 75% equity on the house - in ten to fifteen more years, we will have it fully paid off (accelerating payments is our norm, by the way, I'd rather reduce my 5% mortgage interest items than collect less than 1% in a back account). My wife and I want to leave a house to my son that is free and clear of encumbrances when we die, so that he has an easier life.

I want my country to think forward financially the same way!

Z

[n00b240]

One thing I noticed from those tax facts szh put up. I would expect that the top 1 percent paid the most in combined taxes. What I felt was missing was the proportion of income to taxes paid. If that proportion of tax to income is lower than say the proportion of taxes paid for the average american making 63k (before taxes), with an avg annual spending of 49. Leaving a gap of 14k. All before taxes. I think it leaves a bit to be desired on the tax code front. All this based off the most recent numbers.....from 2k8.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... ealth.html

Also, when they talk about lowering/raising taxes. Are they talking about business or are they talking about individuals, such an important point is routinely left out. And when it is mentioned, they blur the lines so it can be used as a talking point. I can only talk from personal experience, how much I personally pay in taxes, and how much my own business pays in taxes.

When it comes to the top 1 percent paying the most. What percentage of income is this? And how about equalizing some of those percentages. Back when I started college, I was working and going to school. I made 16k. I paid at the time roughly 38% of my wages to Tax. Does the top 1% pay 38% as well? And even at that 38% bit me pretty hard back then. I'll gladly give up 38% now, but back then giving up 38% while making decisions like Im not going to eat today didnt sit very well at the time.

[R/T Hemi]

. . . I have previously described how we now buy cars - new - with cash, by saving for it rather than taking out loans.

Z

It's time to rethink that one Z. With so many 0% loans for 60 months available, it hardly makes any sense to break interest on your savings. It's actually cheaper to use their money.

[szh]

. . . I have previously described how we now buy cars - new - with cash, by saving for it rather than taking out loans.

Z

It's time to rethink that one Z. With so many 0% loans for 60 months available, it hardly makes any sense to break interest on your savings. It's actually cheaper to use their money.

Hmmm ... perhaps.

But I have, in the past, negotiated a lot lower prices on cars - probably as a result of not taking any loans on it.

The last time, I got like $8,400 off the MSRP on my then brand-new 2003 Infiniti M45 purchase ...

Z

[Encryptshun]

noob240:

Great point.

I've said for a very long time that the federal individual income tax code is not what's starving the system -- it's the corporate tax code. Even though (and maybe even because) the U.S. has the higest corporate tax rate in pretty much the world, corporations have so many ways to shelter and hide their money so as not to have pay taxes on it or pay it out in dividends to its shareholders that it's rediculous. They employ entire departments devoted specifically to finding and exploiting tax loopholes.

At the risk of putting up a tokenistic argument, I give you G.E.:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general- ... d=13224558

So even though they made $14.6 billion dollars in 2010, they not only paid ZERO federal income tax, they actually GOT $3.2 billion from the government. This was because they had relocated all their profitable companies overseas while leaving their loss-leading GE Financial here in the U.S. So they got to claim a loss on their U.S. tax statement.

Now THAT'S farked up. You think that them avoiding all taxation on their 2010 profits results in any U.S. jobs or put any tangible wealth to the average joe shareholder? Nope. Not at all.

[szh]

One thing I noticed from those tax facts szh put up. I would expect that the top 1 percent paid the most in combined taxes. What I felt was missing was the proportion of income to taxes paid. If that proportion of tax to income is lower than say the proportion of taxes paid for the average american making 63k (before taxes), with an avg annual spending of 49. Leaving a gap of 14k. All before taxes. I think it leaves a bit to be desired on the tax code front. All this based off the most recent numbers.....from 2k8.

That information is actually also in the charts and in my previous posts. It goes from near 0 percent for low-income folks to over 25% for the high-income people.

When you count state and other taxes, the total percentage numbers are higher, of course, but this is dependent on the state you live in. From personal experience, I can tell you that in "income-tax-free" states like New Hampshire, you end up paying a lot more property tax. For example, my current $800k valued house in CA has an annual property tax of about $8500. When I lived in New Hampshire back in the late eighties, my $140k valued house in NH had an annual property tax of $3500 or so. Way different ratio!

Z

[themadscientist]

Real estate cheat
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Tax cheat
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/ ... 2J20101119

1. Obama bought a house using slightly shady, yet legal tactics. No conviction, no imprisonment.

2. Wesley Snipes evades $38 million tax liability. Convicted, imprisonment, etc.

Having one slightly shady (but for all intents and purposes, legal) real estate deal under your belt is not similar to evading $38 million in tax liability.

One is a convicted felon, the other is not.

Am I wrong?

So you judge whether some thing is unacceptable based upon conviction? Interesting. That shady dude is now your Pesident. Thank god he was never convicted, THEN it might be concerning.

So using the logic you established, O.J. is cool on the murder because he wasn't convicted, but not cool on the memorabelia charge because he was?



In related news, hail to the chief will be shelved for President Obama's new intro song. The good news is it would work on most politicains of either party. Might as well get some flava in Washington since they are all Gs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMYszjabhck[/youtube]

[mattblancarte]

A fine straw man you've constructed in that response. Allow me to retort.

So you judge whether some thing is unacceptable based upon conviction? Interesting. That shady dude is now your Pesident. Thank god he was never convicted, THEN it might be concerning.

Your question is quite vague...

Yes, I do judge some things, but not all, on whether or not someone has been convicted. Do you not? You may have forgotten, but in the United States of America you are innocent until proven guilty.

Have some respect for the legal system, good sir. "Nancy Grace" arguments hold no weight with me.

Furthermore, shady is a relative term. Perhaps the more appropriate description of Obama's deal was that it involved a shady partner. Obama did absolutely nothing illegal. Let that sink in.

In fact, he donated money to charity once it was made public. He made amends for a perfectly legal act.

So using the logic you established, O.J. is cool on the murder because he wasn't convicted, but not cool on the memorabelia charge because he was?

No. You've misconstrued my words and made a fallacious assertion based on your presumption of how I judge "some thing" (your words).

Furthermore, you've displayed an astonishingly brash speculation in asserting how wrong I am about my opinions on O.J. Simpson... which I have never discussed with you. Sheesh. Poor logic has snowballed you into a nonsensical position.

In related news, hail to the chief will be shelved for President Obama's new intro song. The good news is it would work on most politicains of either party. Might as well get some flava in Washington since they are all Gs.

Obama is a half-white lawyer and now, POTUS. He is not a G (gansta).

In summary: Obama's personal financial history is clearly not similar to Wesley Snipes'.

1. Obama conducted an purchase on a house and land from partner who turned out to be a bad person. A good thing to do? No, not the best decision (assuming he knew the guy was shady). Illegal? No, and he has not been charged or convicted of any crime related to the deal.

2. Wesley Snipes was charged and convicted for tax evasion. He withheld $38 million dollars from the IRS.

Is this making sense yet? Obama != Wesley Snipes.

[themadscientist]

No, I have engaged in hyperbole silly!

windproof lighter my a**.



I do enjoy the way you injected race into, though. Not predictable at all.

[n00b240]

That information is actually also in the charts and in my previous posts. It goes from near 0 percent for low-income folks to over 25% for the high-income people.

Thx for that, dunno how I missed that

[mattblancarte]

Well in a political conversation or debate, hyperbole is synonymous with "s***." It's too easy to just talk about the facts to address hyperbole as anything of value. How can you form a reasonable judgement if what you're saying is blown out of proportion (e.g., Obama is similar to Wesley Snipes)?

I do enjoy the way you injected race into, though. Not predictable at all.

**eyes pop out of head**

Haha alright, man. We'll go ahead and pretend that you didn't post the following prior to my response:

In related news, hail to the chief will be shelved for President Obama's new intro song. The good news is it would work on most politicains of either party. Might as well get some flava in Washington since they are all Gs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMYszjabhck[/youtube]

Yeah, that had nothing to do with Obama's race. Nothing at all. lol

[themadscientist]

It doesn't. It seems to for you, based upon your statement but that is entirely your problem.

[IBCoupe]

maybe when we talk about people 'paying their fair share' we need to ask the people who dont pay Federal Income tax (40% of filers) to pay a little to help keep this country going?

This is the chart you see:


This is the chart I see:


Notice the difference in titles? Yes, federal income taxes are progressive. No, it's not a problem.

[BusyBadger]

Notice the difference in titles?

Yeah, one says 2008 and another says 2010.

[IBCoupe]

Think the numbers for all taxes is going to be much different? What in the tax code has changed since then?