Soaking the Rich will not solve Spending Problem

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I already posted this in another thread, so sorry for the double post, but I figure it needs to be said here as well:

 

At this point the tax codes do need reforming, but "reforming the tax code" and "cutting taxes" are not the same thing. What we have right now is essentially a maze of Swiss cheese comprised of differing federal, state and local taxes. I choose that analogy because the ordinary guy who plays by the rules and pays his taxes when they come due no matter how onerous gets lost in the maze and finds his bank account half empty by the time it's over with because of burgeoning property taxes, obscure little rules, etc. while the millionaire or large corporation hires a lawyer (or posse thereof), finds every single hole in the tax code, and proceeds to drive an Abrams M-1 through it. This cannot continue.

 

If you want to reform the tax code, consider adding three additional brackets, starting at $250,000 annual income, $500,000 annual income, and $1,000,000 annual income, taxed at 45%, 55%, and 65% respectively. Considering that there are around 13 million individuals making $100,000 or higher and a fair number of them would fall into at least one of the new brackets, that alone could easily bring in a couple billion or more. Also, close as many loopholes as possible that corporations and the wealthy can use to shelter or avoid reporting income (including taxing stock options, capital gains, and other nonmonetary forms of compensation as income) and restore the estate tax. Finally, instead of giving tax breaks to corporations who manufacture in America, start subjecting offshore goods to tariffs and set up a second corporate tax code with much higher rates and fewer opportunities for deductions for any company headquartered in America that manufactures goods elsewhere.

 

Also, while we're on the topic of tax reform, how about this: cut the FICA rates to 5% and 1.2% (roughly 20 percent) but have it apply to all personal income over and above the first $25,000 instead of only the first $106,800 earned, and then allow 25-30% of the available surplus to be applied toward debt reduction each year. That should guarantee a continued surplus for Medicare and Social Security, but because the government is only allowed to apply a percentage of each year's surplus to anything else and then only to reducing the national debt we can count on Social Security and Medicare being fully self-supporting.

 

Finally, if you want to really reduce spending to government programs such as welfare, Food Stamps/TANF, WIC, etc. you need to restructure how those programs are administered rather than simply cut funding. During and after the Reagan administration, federal programs such as these were removed from the hands of the federal government and given to states and localities, with the Feds providing the funding. I'm not going to argue about whether or not it worked then because it's beside the point, but the fact is that it's hardly working out now, largely because a lot of state governments are incredibly corrupt and either disconnected from their constituents or connected in all the wrong ways (a la Boss Tweed). This means that everything costs way more than it should and takes way longer than it should. Cutting funding to the states will only cause higher state and local taxes (including the hated property taxes), and cutting funding while capping taxes will lead to California because the state politicians' piece of the pie comes before services to the residents of that state.

 

If you allow the Feds to actually administer the programs themselves you'll probably cut costs by a very sizable amount without having to cut services at all, first because you'll have dropped an entire layer of beaurocracy in one fell swoop, and second because you won't have men like Efrain Gonzales and Vic Kohring lining up in front of Congress demanding blank-check grants anymore.

 

I also agree with you that we do need to cut down on government waste, and your $700K fish tank is the perfect example of that sort of waste. That said, "entitlement programs" such as the ones listed above are not inherently wasteful, and lumping them into the same category as the above boondoggle is an insult to all of our intelligence. Keeping as many people as we can off the park benches at night and out of the soup kitchens during the day is at its core the right thing to do and you can hardly argue that it's unnecessary. Changing the way in which it is administered to make it more efficient and slashing the intermediate bureaucracy is completely acceptable. Gutting the program and slashing funding while accusing dissenters of class warfare is not and I think it's about damn time we made that distinction.

 

Finally, if you really want to cut spending the Defense Department and Homeland Security should no longer be immune to budget overviews and restrictions, especially given the fact that a number of their development projects (including the Lockheed Martin F-35 project in particular) have a nasty habit of coming in way late and way over budget. Also, the TSA should be divested from DHS and disbanded; the responisbility to protect our nation's airports should be traded off to state troopers where possible; given the number of odd and quite frankly baseless grants given to random locales in the name of terrorism prevention after 9/11 it might be a good idea to demand that that money be put to use in a way we can all see and measure.

 

Now, as to your generalized argument that the GOP knows what's best for the country and that the Democrats are petty spin doctors with no real conception of fiscal responsibility, listen to this: In 1932, when the country was on the brink of falling to pieces, FDR managed to bring it partially around. How did he do it? Creation of a social safety net to put the floor back under the American people, drawing up industry-wide codes of fair play and putting the force of law behind it, and increasing taxes on the wealthy. Guess what? It worked. The only reason this country took a dip in 1937 was because conservatives then demanded the same thing the Tea Party "patriots" are demanding now: deficit and debt reduction at all costs. To those who claim that this is Obama's mess because he didn't get anything done, what would you have him do? Unless Congress listens to him (which they won't because the regular GOP thinks he's too far to the left to listen to and the Tea Party people think he's the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin) he can't do anything.

 

 

Actually, I never said anything about the GOP knowing what is right for the country. I am an Independent and have never voted for a Republican president. I voted for Ralph Nader and Bob Barr respectively, third party candidates. In fact, I have voted for more Democrats and third party candidates than Republicans, so I am far from a Republican. Unlike the Liberals and the Democrats, I don't vote along party lines.

[Tokkemon]

This is an absolute waste of a thread.

 

And again, all those saying that the rich should pay their "fair share" wouldn't be saying that if they had the money to begin with.

 

Also, there is no baseline of living (I think it was Subway Guy who said so). It varies from place to place, sometimes dramatically. $45k a year will not support a family of 4 in New York City. But it will in Missouri. With a nation as large and diverse as the USA, you cannot have a unilateral tax code; it simply isn't possible.

[engineerboy6561]

Actually, I never said anything about the GOP knowing what is right for the country. I am an Independent and have never voted for a Republican president. I voted for Ralph Nader and Bob Barr respectively, third party candidates. In fact, I have voted for more Democrats and third party candidates than Republicans, so I am far from a Republican. Unlike the Liberals and the Democrats, I don't vote along party lines.

 

OK; my comment about the GOP knowing what was best for America derives from some of your comments about applying a more balanced tax scheme being tantamount to class warfare and your earlier statements of support for the Tea Party (who are half a mile farther to the right than the mainstream GOP). Also, indulge my curiosity for the moment: what happened between 2000 and now? I can understand disagreeing with parties on particular issues (I am a Keynesian, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun, and partially pro-death penalty), but Ralph Nader is very Keynesian, very wary of corporations, and incredibly unlikely to back the marriage of government, big business, and the interests of the wealthy that the Tea Party push for at every turn. How exactly did you get from Nader to Barr to the Tea Party?

[Roadcruiser1]

What do you mean? My family earns 32K a year and we are a family of 4.

[Urbanfortitude]

What do you mean? My family earns 32K a year and we are a family of 4.

 

Ah yes. And how well is that working out for you?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

OK; my comment about the GOP knowing what was best for America derives from some of your comments about applying a more balanced tax scheme being tantamount to class warfare and your earlier statements of support for the Tea Party (who are half a mile farther to the right than the mainstream GOP). Also, indulge my curiosity for the moment: what happened between 2000 and now? I can understand disagreeing with parties on particular issues (I am a Keynesian, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun, and partially pro-death penalty), but Ralph Nader is very Keynesian, very wary of corporations, and incredibly unlikely to back the marriage of government, big business, and the interests of the wealthy that the Tea Party push for at every turn. How exactly did you get from Nader to Barr to the Tea Party?

 

Understand that both Nader and Barr's positions on certain issues have shifted over the years. I do not consider myself to be a Tea Party person either, although I do strongly believe that the government is overspending beyond its means and I also strongly believe in low taxes for EVERYONE regardless of class. I would support something along the lines of a fair tax provided that some of the issues that have been raised could be ironed out of course.

 

Personally I feel that Nader is getting too old to really be of any reverence, although I do like the fact that he's still around giving the Democrats hell and trying to change this two party corrupt strangehold that is currently on this country. People are so disillusioned that the Democrats really give a sh*t about the middle class or anyone for that matter and the Republicans aren't much better. It was noted today that when Obama took office we were about 10 trillion in debt. In just TWO years, we've increased out debt by nearly 40% and quite frankly we have nothing to show for it, so that's another 4 trillion dollars of debt created by the Democrats. Can't put that on the Republicans or anybody else.

 

Barr used to be a Republican whose ideals have changed. He would be tough on illegal immigration, is a strong supporter of low taxes for the wealthy AND the middle class, is a protectionist (I strongly believe that we need protectionist measures put in place, as China is destroying our economy by flooding our markets with cheap toxic goods). He's also pro-choice (he wasn't as a Republican), as am I and is liberal on other social issues like I am. He's more along the lines of a Liberterian. :cool:

 

Whether or not he'll run for 2012 remains to be seen. I do like that Nader is a watch dog for the American consumer, as we certainly need that. We need American corporations to learn how to be moral again and do business here in the U.S. For what it's worth, companies can be profitable and make their products here in the U.S.

 

The other person I'm considering is Mitt Romney. He's running under the Republican flag, but he isn't a true Republican. He was quite successful in Massachusetts in raining in the spending and turning that state around fiscally and did so while providing tax breaks. He seems to be up in the air on things like abortion (he has previously been pro-choice), but his stance on implementing protectionist measures I do like. He realizes the danger that China poses to the U.S. and has stated that he would implement protectionist measures, something that most "Republicans" run away from.

[checkmatechamp13]

I've been saying this all along. Socking the rich and the upper middle class with ridiculous taxes will not solve the problem, nor will hiking taxes on anyone for that matter. Washington needs to learn how to cut its spending and stop looking to the taxpayers for more and more money. :mad: :tdown:

 

We also need to get more abled folks working and not abusing the system and collecting welfare .

 

I'll agree with you that spending needs to be reduced. There are too many instances of places where money is being wasted while our services are being reduced.

 

I remember reading a post on city-data that made a lot of sense to me: Housing projects in Manhattan are taking up valuable real estate (especially ones in areas like the UWS and Chelsea). If the city moved all of the residents somewhere else, they would be making a lot of money rather than losing money. Think about it: The housing projects on the LES are waterfront property.

 

Of course, the problem becomes what to do with all of the residents. Ideally, you could build housing projects further out in the outer boroughs, where land is cheaper, but of course, you have NIMBY issues to deal with.

 

You may be thinking "Let them fend for themselves", but let's face it: There are a lot of people who are working, but have a very low-wage job and need assistance to get by.

 

You could offer some residents a lower rent and move them to a place like Camden, where there are a whole bunch of abandoned houses that could be knocked down to build housing for them.

 

Just food for thought.

 

Every year I pay taxes I usually end up getting audited and owing money and I'm in the bottom tax bracket (and I am also single), so I actually do understand what you're saying. What's ironic is conflating upper middle class with rich. I'm not saying that you pay too little in taxes (if anything you're probably paying too much), but the ones who can actually afford it (anyone whos yearly salary can be described with the term "million") isn't paying their fare share.

 

Whats also ironic is that if you had a kid or three (not to give anyone ideas) you'd probably get money back. For some reason the IRS just loves the little ones.......

 

Speaking of which, I have a nice idea to help the federal budget problem without raising taxes. It's time we rain in on some of the biggest welfare programs thats draining this country and the first should be cutting the pay and health benefits of Congress. Since everyone's living within their means, why not have them do the same. As should the President, State Governors and their legislatures.

 

The thing is that anybody who's salary can be described with the term "million" most likely has enough money that a few million extra isn't going to make a difference in their quality of life.

 

4) The rich that you hate so much WORKED for their money. They did not steal it.

 

 

That's where I disagree. They may have worked for it, but the effort they put into making the money yielded far more than it would for the average person.

 

They may have spent hours online and on the phone trying to organize their business or whatever it is that made them successful, but there are plenty of people who do that for a fraction of the reward.

 

Here is a chart that will solve the problems. I am sorry, but I really need to prove a point here. Here is how the chart works. You look at your income and you see what class you are in. For example my parents make $32,000 a year. That would put me, and my family in the Lower Middle Class.

 

 

I can't see that chart (maybe it's my computer). Can you post the image?

 

Since we're on the topic of definitions, here is one:

 

com·mu·nism noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ 

 

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

 

Based on that definition you could certainly argue that it is communism.

 

 

 

Is that (the part that I bolded) so bad, though?

 

What do you mean? My family earns 32K a year and we are a family of 4.

 

It is definitely possible to live here on a low salary, but realistically, your quality of life is going to be pretty low.

 

A general rule is to have a salary that is 40x your monthly rent, which means that to "live within your means" would require you to only pay $800 per month in rent. $800 per month won't get you much in Brooklyn.

[Tokkemon]

Heh. $800 will barely get you a box in the road.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'll agree with you that spending needs to be reduced. There are too many instances of places where money is being wasted while our services are being reduced.

 

I remember reading a post on city-data that made a lot of sense to me: Housing projects in Manhattan are taking up valuable real estate (especially ones in areas like the UWS and Chelsea). If the city moved all of the residents somewhere else, they would be making a lot of money rather than losing money. Think about it: The housing projects on the LES are waterfront property.

 

Of course, the problem becomes what to do with all of the residents. Ideally, you could build housing projects further out in the outer boroughs, where land is cheaper, but of course, you have NIMBY issues to deal with.

 

You may be thinking "Let them fend for themselves", but let's face it: There are a lot of people who are working, but have a very low-wage job and need assistance to get by.

 

You could offer some residents a lower rent and move them to a place like Camden, where there are a whole bunch of abandoned houses that could be knocked down to build housing for them.

 

Just food for thought.

 

Funny you mentioned those housing projects because I was thinking the same thing last Saturday when I was coming back from Sheepshead Bay on the BM3 and we were coming up the FDR Drive. I thought to myself man this is prime real estate here and they've got f*cking PJs here.

 

 

The thing is that anybody who's salary can be described with the term "million" most likely has enough money that a few million extra isn't going to make a difference in their quality of life.

 

That should have nothing to do with it. There is no law anywhere that says that you are limited as to how much money you can have or earn. If that's the case then we should just do away with capitalism.

 

 

That's where I disagree. They may have worked for it, but the effort they put into making the money yielded far more than it would for the average person.

 

They may have spent hours online and on the phone trying to organize their business or whatever it is that made them successful, but there are plenty of people who do that for a fraction of the reward.

 

And what's your point. That's why we live in a capitalist society. Everyone isn't meant to earn the same amount of money.

 

Is that (the part that I bolded) so bad, though?

 

As far as I'm concerned yes. It should be about those who are the most skilled and the smartest at what they do earning the most. Why should some washed up dude earn as much as I do when I'm several times smarter than him and speak several languages?

 

 

A general rule is to have a salary that is 40x your monthly rent, which means that to "live within your means" would require you to only pay $800 per month in rent. $800 per month won't get you much in Brooklyn.

 

Actually $800.00 could get you something in the "hood" I suppose. Maybe a studio apartment in a sh*tty part of Brooklyn like East New York, Brownsville or something. P.S. No offense of course to anyone living in those areas.

[SoSpectacular]

Then there's no point in bringing a store or business like Walmart or anything that pays borderline minimum wage over here at all, you can't even live off what they pay you, move it along

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Then there's no point in bringing a store or business like Walmart or anything that pays borderline minimum wage over here at all, you can't even live off what they pay you, move it along

 

Speaking of Walmart, they plan on opening a store here in NYC sometime soon and they can do it too without receiving approval. They'll pick a spot where the city council can't protest it, but areas being targeted are saying they're going to fight it tooth and nail.

[East New York]

This is an absolute waste of a thread.

 

And again, all those saying that the rich should pay their "fair share" wouldn't be saying that if they had the money to begin with.

 

 

 

Negative! Again, I will say that those of US with money who are NOT greedy have been saying it for the last 2 years! Tax us, and make laws that prevent the shipment of US jobs overseas! There is more than one way to skin a cat!

 

This includes heavy hitters like Oprah, Sam Walton, Warren Buffet, and countless other millionaires and billionaires.

 

When I make these comments, I speak for myself, my family and my friends.

 

Now that 65% stuff engineerboy was talking about is a little outlandish if you ask me! You can have 50%-55% of my check to spur the economy, but let's not get crazy with it here!

[SubwayGuy]

This is an absolute waste of a thread.

 

And again, all those saying that the rich should pay their "fair share" wouldn't be saying that if they had the money to begin with.

 

Also, there is no baseline of living (I think it was Subway Guy who said so). It varies from place to place, sometimes dramatically. $45k a year will not support a family of 4 in New York City. But it will in Missouri. With a nation as large and diverse as the USA, you cannot have a unilateral tax code; it simply isn't possible.

 

Ah yes the "jealous" argument for defending the rich.

 

I'm not jealous. I am sick of listening to people defend the group that CAUSED the financial crisis. I am sick of people arguing that allowing the rich to keep their money is "fair to them" while ignoring the reality of history, which dictates to us that a plutocratic society cannot function as a successful economy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

It is simply good policy to have a free, but refereed economy, that pays its wealthy proportionally more than everyone else, commensurate with their value to the economy - AND NOT A CENT MORE. There will always be rich and poor, but what we have now is super rich, and everyone else, and history already shows us that THIS DOES NOT WORK as an economic model. It spirals onward and onward until it destroys itself from within (as we are seeing now), or until the people tire of being oppressed and take BACK from the wealthy.

 

It's going to happen one way or another, sooner or later. The rich always do get theirs.

 

Those advocating for no new taxes on the wealthy and simply cutting spending fail to understand how debt works. Debt accrues interest...every...single...day. By missing an opportunity to do what is necessary - not to add new taxes, but to simply restore old ones that were present during America's golden age in the last century - we allow that debt to remain high for additional months and years. That, in turn, increases the deficit down the road by a large amount for a long time, due to the compounding of interest. And then we pass that bill on to middle and working class America, by cutting services that they wanted, services that they asked their congressmen and women to have...leaving in place superficial tax cuts and loopholes that NEVER should have been enacted which benefit the wealthy and large corporations who continue to ship jobs overseas. And we maintain the shell of high corporate tax rates, which encourages American companies to keep jobs overseas so they can skirt their taxes using credits and deductions, and pay microscopic tax rates here.

 

And then we can all get together and argue about spending and waste, and pinpoint stupid items here and there, and get hung up in the pennies, and lose sight of everything that it meant to be American and everything that America showed WORKED when building the greatest economic engine this world has ever seen.

 

It's gone, and we've destroyed it, and rather than asking those with the most...those who profited from its destruction, to pay more to rebuild it, some are content to just "leave them be" while asking EVERYONE ELSE...everyone who has already suffered, who is out of work, to accept reduced services...to continue making their tax payments...while we allow the rich to keep a standard of living consistent with dark ages monarchy, and maintain their greed and arrogance even in the face of financial annihilation.

 

There's something royally f*cked up about all of that. Greed never was an American value, and now it's not about what's good for the country, or the economy, or competing with foreign enemies...it's all about "gimme it it's mine". These are the kids at the playground who used to steal your toys who one day that bully would kick the sh*t out of and they'd never do it again. Apparently 21st century America wants to neuter the bully, or put him on Prozac, and let the greedy bastards do what they want. And you're all willing to bite a bullet for some rich c*ck sucker you've never met, but no one is willing to stand up for the working and middle class that has been raped and pillage for the better part of the last 35 years. And that's embarrasing.

[Roadcruiser1]

No I don't live in the slums. My family and I live in a house in Bensonhurst, and no we didn't cheat our way to it. My family saved their money in the bank, and I also have my extended family working and earning money as well.

[engineerboy6561]

Now that 65% stuff engineerboy was talking about is a little outlandish if you ask me! You can have 50%-55% of my check to spur the economy, but let's not get crazy with it here!

 

Not to nitpick, but a 65% marginal tax rate does not actually mean 65% of your check goes to the government. If appended to the current system of brackets we have, what I suggested is not so bad. Say for instance that you were making $1.5 million per year. Based on what I proposed, your income tax would be:

 

$850 on the first $8500

$3900 on the next $26,000

$12,275 on the next $49,100

$25,424 on the next $90,800

$25,300 on the next $75,600

$112,500 on the next $250,000

$275,000 on the next $500,000

$325,000 on the next $500,000

 

That totals to $780,429 or just over 52% of your paycheck assuming no deductions.

 

Essentially the top bracket rate is the theoretical maximum of your average tax rate; as you earn more and more the percentage of your paycheck going to the government creeps toward the top bracket rate but can neither exactly equal it nor pass it. In reality, the total percentage of your paycheck that goes to taxes doesn't hit 55% until you're bringing home $1,845,710 each year and it doesn't hit 60% until you're making $3,691,420. It doesn't hit 62.5% until you're making well over $7 million every year, and it cannot by definition reach 65%.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There's something royally f*cked up about all of that. Greed never was an American value, and now it's not about what's good for the country, or the economy, or competing with foreign enemies...it's all about "gimme it it's mine". These are the kids at the playground who used to steal your toys who one day that bully would kick the sh*t out of and they'd never do it again. Apparently 21st century America wants to neuter the bully, or put him on Prozac, and let the greedy bastards do what they want. And you're all willing to bite a bullet for some rich c*ck sucker you've never met, but no one is willing to stand up for the working and middle class that has been raped and pillage for the better part of the last 35 years. And that's embarrasing.

 

The American dream has always been to strike it rich and "punishing" those who have accomplished the American dream LEGALLY through hard work is completely wrong. We reward hard work in this country and if someone works hard and makes a lot of money, well good for them. That's the American way. :cool: :tup:

 

I can understand going after deadbeats and so forth, but there is no need to punish folks who have earned their money the honest way. You are trying to "punish" them simply because they have more money than the next guy. Last I checked that is NOT a crime, but a product of capitalism. :tup:

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[SoSpectacular]

And I definitely know a lot of hard workers that deserve more than what they get

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Punishment? What are you kidding me? Punishment?

 

In a civilized world, you pay taxes. It makes sense that a man living in a mansion can afford to pony up more for taxes than a man living in a shack. That's the basic principle.

 

Yeah, just keep skipping around the issue. If you had it your way, there would be no rich people because they'd all be taxed to death, so in that scenario we wouldn't have anyone to "bail us out" of this mess created by overspending.

 

 

And you tell me why a CEO shouldn't get paid more than a plumber? Hell I run my own department (albeit a small one in comparison to other bigger companies) and oversee EVERYTHING as the coordinator of the department. A CEO has to oversee the entire company (several departments in most cases) and manage hundreds of employees, along with everything else in the company and if they fail, the company fails. That is a HUGE responsibility to undertake and quite frankly, licensed plumbers are well paid. If they want to complain about losing money they can thank the illegals for undercutting their pay. :mad: :tdown:

[Tokkemon]

Punishment? What are you kidding me? Punishment?

 

In a civilized world, you pay taxes. It makes sense that a man living in a mansion can afford to pony up more for taxes than a man living in a shack. That's the basic principle.

 

That ALREADY happens! :mad:

[Trainmaster5]

Exactly, all that bs about how the rich have "earned their money."

 

Find me a Wall Street CEO who deserves a penny more than a plumber.

 

Quite frankly I don't believe there's a CEO, CFO, or any other pseudo-titled " boss" who is worth 25x to 1000x more than any employee working in the same company. I'm not talking about Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Gates , Ballmer, the Google crew, or those whom I consider more of a visionary. For instance I think the chief engineers at Intel, AMD/ATI, GM,Ford and the like should be paid more than the titular heads of those companies. I've always thought that the head surgeons and nurses were worth more than the titular head of Sloan-Kettering for example. I'm of the opinion that most of these titled people are just "overseers" while the hands-on people do the real work and should be compensated accordingly. Since this is a transit forum let me ask this. Does anyone think that Chairman Jay Walder was worth the money in comparison to the people in capital construction, finance, or planning ? I vote for the plumber. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Tokkemon]

Quite frankly I don't believe there's a CEO, CFO, or any other pseudo-titled " boss" who is worth 25x to 1000x more than any employee working in the same company.

 

That's because you've never been one.

[Urbanfortitude]

This is an absolute waste of a thread.

 

And again, all those saying that the rich should pay their "fair share" wouldn't be saying that if they had the money to begin with.

 

Also, there is no baseline of living (I think it was Subway Guy who said so). It varies from place to place, sometimes dramatically. $45k a year will not support a family of 4 in New York City. But it will in Missouri. With a nation as large and diverse as the USA, you cannot have a unilateral tax code; it simply isn't possible.

 

Yeah sure let's go with that. Even though I'm saying they should pay their fair share and while I really only care that I have enough to keep a roof over my head, food on my table and stack the rest in a savings account without having to put in extra freelance or borrow from friends who are doing better than me. But yes I am soooooo jealous that these guys live it up at the expense of me being bled dry with taxes & higher cost of living that keeps rising with little rhyme or reason. Get a grip. Some of us just want to feel like working like a dog is actually helping to make ends meet. They can have all that fancy shit. I just want to get by. This shit is downright unfair to me as I see it.

[checkmatechamp13]

 

As far as I'm concerned yes. It should be about those who are the most skilled and the smartest at what they do earning the most. Why should some washed up dude earn as much as I do when I'm several times smarter than him and speak several languages?

 

 

 

 

Actually $800.00 could get you something in the "hood" I suppose. Maybe a studio apartment in a sh*tty part of Brooklyn like East New York, Brownsville or something. P.S. No offense of course to anyone living in those areas.

 

1) And there are plenty of people dumber than you making much more money, so that's capitalism working against you right there. I'm sure those morons at the MTA that are giving us a hard time about our proposals are making at least what you make, if not more.

 

2) I think that's a little extreme. You'd probably get a small apartment in a good area for $800 (some houses are built with an apartment that can be rented out). In the "hood", you'd probably get a decent-sized apartment.

 

Speaking of Walmart, they plan on opening a store here in NYC sometime soon and they can do it too without receiving approval. They'll pick a spot where the city council can't protest it, but areas being targeted are saying they're going to fight it tooth and nail.

 

The only one I know of is the ones being planned for the Gateway Mall in Spring Creek.

 

No I don't live in the slums. My family and I live in a house in Bensonhurst, and no we didn't cheat our way to it. My family saved their money in the bank, and I also have my extended family working and earning money as well.

 

There you go. You're not living solely on $32,000: You have relatives pitching in and have some savings.

 

It is possible to live here (for a family of 4) on less than that, but you'd probably need some form of government assistance (or you'd live a really poor quality of life).