Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…

[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.

My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.

Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.

Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint. [/quote]

Corollary to bean’s point about lifting numbers–a friend of mine, who I worked with, owns 3 bars. He built them from scratch right out of college, and has already made his first million. He’s under 30–typically that time when a male with money would be spending a retarded amount on silly things he doesn’t even want, just because he can. Instead, this guy lives like a well off blue collar guy–nice truck, motorcycle, small house (we’re talking single story small, like the size of some 2-3 bedroom apartments).

His girlfriend, who I also know, asked him what he wanted to buy. He always answers, “i don’t really need anything. Not much I really want to buy”. Why then does he stress about his business, put in 16 hour work days, get completely upset at people who are screwing up their jobs, and why is he always worrying about the next promotional event or a better way to cram his bars full of college students? Is he greedy? Sitting on his horde of bank accounts like a dragon on gold? No. having known him for years I can say absolutely not. He also gives quite generously to charity. No, this is due to 2 things:

  1. more profit is a way to measure his progress, his success. The business gets more people in the door, they come back more often–that means he’s progressing as a business man. Exact same thing as chasing lifting numbers. It’s the only metric he know of that allows him to compare himself to his competition, and judge progress against them or ahead of them. Exactly th same as beans pointed out earlier.

2)he stresses, gets incredibly upset, worries constantly, because this business is his baby. Really like his kid. He did about 80% of the construction work himself–no crew, one man. He worked 18 hour days living on energy drinks building dor months and months, took out the loan himself, sold his truck and motorcycle for more money at one point to do it. Every time he expanded, he did the work himself–myself and a few others helped the following bars and renovations, but it was still a crew of basically 3-4 guys, on a good day maybe 6-7. All the building code, him. All the fire code, him. All the trim, decorations, varnish, half the furniture, all him. Soo…when somebody is working for him and starts lazing around or steals money, or gives shit away, or even something as simple as forgets to turn the breakers off when closing, he gets upset. Becuase its like somebody not giving a shit about his child, his kid.

The samw thing happens in boardrooms across America. Its the same for both people, just different kinds of work. Same long hours, sleepless nights, stressing, all that. And it doesn’t matter whether its the federal gov’t telling them “you didnt build that” or their employees screwing around and stabbing them in the back…or sheer negligence. It’s a kid to them.

Also for the record, Obama is pissing my buddy off too, not just the board room “rich guys”. my buddy might have 7 figures in the bank, but he doesn’t make 7 figures a year. That’s saved up.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…

[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.

My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.

Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.

Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint. [/quote]

Why did you feel the need to point out your income and religious affiliation to make your point ?

[/quote]

My point was merely I make less than the person who would leave such a note and don’t have the judeo-Christian structure guiding my morals and I would still never do that to someone or think it was funny.

There’s a reason I don’t hang in these parts much. I truly do suck at debate!

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

My point was merely I make less than the person who would leave such a note and don’t have the judeo-Christian structure guiding my morals and I would still never do that to someone or think it was funny.

There’s a reason I don’t hang in these parts much. I truly do suck at debate!
[/quote]

I have to say, assuming that the service was good, I absolutely and completely agree with you.

I don’t have a ton of discretionary money. But when I do eat out, I tip well.

Not that this matters, and not that it’s news that there are assholes out there.

[quote]kpsnap wrote

There’s a reason I don’t hang in these parts much. I truly do suck at debate!
[/quote]

Nonsense. We need somebody civil here :). Also there’s nothing wrong with just posing questions since you can learn something! Or one of the PWI regulars among us might as well.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…

[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.

My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.

Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.

Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint. [/quote]

Two questions:

  1. How far off base was my wild-ass guess that you are a trainer/friend of trainers of the kept women?

  2. Have you re-considered the validity of a tax system based on “getting-those-awful-bitches”?*

  • Not that they don’t deserve being “gotten.” Just that it’s a bad plan economically if the goal is to raise the standard of living of the masses.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’m not a physics major here so I’m lost:

a) Pre-Obama Tax Increases: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $10. My cost $60, waiter makes $10. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $1000.

b) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint forces me to pay the additional $2 as a tip. My cost is again $60.

c) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint adds $2 to my food costs to cover the additional pay they have to give the waiter. My cost is again $60.

No, it isn’t always going to be a 1 for 1, but in simple terms, forced tip or increased food costs, in the end, both do the same thing, raise my cost of eating out above what I planned.
[/quote]

You do not have to be a physicist to get this:

a) pre tax increase: you pay $60

b and c) post tax increase: you pay $60, and the waiter makes the same amount

Since $60 = $60, it follows that a = b = c, this means that the cost of dining there is the same pre- and post tax increase is the same. What you wanted to pay is not relevant to this scenario at all. If you can not afford it, do not eat there. It is called living within your means. If you cannot afford a custom tailored suit, you do not buy it. You do not go to the tailor, get it made and take possession of it and say “Due to the tax increase I can not afford to pay you full price, but I will give you 90% of your price.” That will land you in jail for theft or more, and if you try to say beforehand that you will not pay full price you will be shown the door. If enough people cannot afford to frequent that establishment, it will either have to make fundamental changes to its prices or how the business is run or go out of business. This guys actions will not ultimately affect the profits of the restaurant or the wages of the staff. I have already explained why.

I will get to the rest of your post later, I have a dinner reservation and I will be leaving a very generous tip, assuming the service is good (and it always is at this place).

[/quote]

BIt of an aside, in your former home of Russia they get the ecomics at work here – they have a flat tax of 13%.

I think you and counting beans are passing ships – no one is disputing the cheap tipper is an ass.

Where you seem to missing it is the the human variable CHANGES as result of the tax hikes — a non-mathamatical thing to do.

The server is going to be the net loser under either scenario — either from decreased tip from a given transaction or simply someone staying home.

Me, I can’t stand cheap tippers, so I am staying home.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…

[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.

My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.

Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.

Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint. [/quote]

Why did you feel the need to point out your income and religious affiliation to make your point ?

[/quote]

My point was merely I make less than the person who would leave such a note and don’t have the judeo-Christian structure guiding my morals and I would still never do that to someone or think it was funny.

There’s a reason I don’t hang in these parts much. I truly do suck at debate!
[/quote]

The person who left the note could be subject to paying 52% of their income (between state and Fed taxes), I think they earned the right to be more than a little pissed off.

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.

I don’t think you suck at debate, but I can assure you that you will get better by default by hanging around here. Just like weights, practice makes perfect.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

Don’t worry about it Max. That’s the left’s fixation on how much other people are making. It bothers them to no end. It’s a combination of jealousy and looking for a source of wealth to continue to grow an already too large government.

If they can take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it and don’t deserve it that furthers their completely fucked up philosophy.

It won’t take many more years of democratic rule before the entire country looks like California.

Go get em Obama…show us how far you can take us down!

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

If someone has 80 percent of the wealth, and wealth is what is taxed, would it not stand to reason that this person would pay 80 percent of the tax?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

70% of the state is on the dole in some way, I would say they don’t command much.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

70% of the state is on the dole in some way, I would say they don’t command much. [/quote]

First of all that’s crazy.

But that would imply that the top 15 percent do indeed command a ton of the wealth.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

If someone has 80 percent of the wealth, and wealth is what is taxed, would it not stand to reason that this person would pay 80 percent of the tax?[/quote]

Wealth is not taxed.

Income is taxed.

And income is taxed disproportionately, such that the top 50% of incomes pay 100% of the income tax (give or take 1% or so).

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

Don’t worry about it Max. That’s the left’s fixation on how much other people are making. It bothers them to no end. It’s a combination of jealousy and looking for a source of wealth to continue to grow an already too large government.

If they can take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it and don’t deserve it that furthers their completely fucked up philosophy.

It won’t take many more years of democratic rule before the entire country looks like California.

Go get em Obama…show us how far you can take us down!

[/quote]

Who is Max? Marx, maybe?

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

BIt of an aside, in your former home of Russia they get the ecomics at work here – they have a flat tax of 13%.

I think you and counting beans are passing ships – no one is disputing the cheap tipper is an ass.

Where you seem to missing it is the the human variable CHANGES as result of the tax hikes — a non-mathamatical thing to do.

The server is going to be the net loser under either scenario — either from decreased tip from a given transaction or simply someone staying home.

Me, I can’t stand cheap tippers, so I am staying home.

[/quote]

Yep, and taxes on dividends are 9% and the corporate tax rate is 20%. The sales tax is pretty high at 18%, though. And I should note that Russia has fared extremely well during this economic crisis. However, you must keep in mind that the size of our federal government is not anywhere near as large as the US has. For instance, we spend less than 100 billion USD per year on defense. If push comes to shove in a regional conflict, we have a massive reserve force that can be called up and for larger potential conflicts we have a massive nuclear arsenal to maintain our interests so it makes no sense to spend $600+ on the military.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

If someone has 80 percent of the wealth, and wealth is what is taxed, would it not stand to reason that this person would pay 80 percent of the tax?[/quote]

Wealth is not taxed.

Income is taxed.

And income is taxed disproportionately, such that the top 50% of incomes pay 100% of the income tax (give or take 1% or so).[/quote]

Wealth–income, property, capital gains, inheritance etc. Nearly everything except what’s stored under the mattress.

By the way, the bottom 50 percent controls how much of the wealth in the United States?

1.1 percent as of 2010.

[quote]MaximusB wrote: I don’t think you suck at debate, but I can assure you that you will get better by default by hanging around here. Just like weights, practice makes perfect. [/quote]I agree and with Aragorn too. This lady and I agree on absolutely nothing I’ve seen so far, but I certainly like to see people hang around here. Her recognizing a natural deficiency in the area of debate, about which there is nothing to be ashamed, induced some respect from me actually. Sincerely. Self abasing honesty, when honest, is disarming.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote: I don’t think you suck at debate, but I can assure you that you will get better by default by hanging around here. Just like weights, practice makes perfect. [/quote]I agree and with Aragorn too. This lady and I agree on absolutely nothing I’ve seen so far, but I certainly like to see people hang around here. Her recognizing a natural deficiency in the area of debate, about which there is nothing to be ashamed, induced some respect from me actually. Sincerely. Self abasing honesty, when honest, is disarming.
[/quote]

I certainly don’t want her to feel like she shouldn’t post because she feels like she sucks at this, I like getting all sorts of feedback.

I just don’t want the vile stuff we see (basically what VT Balla does when he comes in.)

I have seen all sorts of people here disagree, but it should not be nasty or personal.

Shit, I think Pitt has probably some of the thickest skin in this place from all the shit he has taken, but he handles it well. If he came out West, I would buy him a beer, while still calling him a lunatic.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

The idea of people paying their fair share should be zoomed in, as in California the top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.
[/quote]

What percentage of the total wealth do the top 15 percent command?[/quote]

Who cares? How is that relevant to the standard of living of others?[/quote]

Don’t worry about it Max. That’s the left’s fixation on how much other people are making. It bothers them to no end. It’s a combination of jealousy and looking for a source of wealth to continue to grow an already too large government.

If they can take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it and don’t deserve it that furthers their completely fucked up philosophy.

It won’t take many more years of democratic rule before the entire country looks like California.

Go get em Obama…show us how far you can take us down!

[/quote]

Who is Max? Marx, maybe?[/quote]

Sorry, I called you Max I should have said Jewbacca. I stand by everything else in my post.