It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan
$11 per week is a cell phone bill, and netflix
$11 per week is a utility bill
$11 per week is a pair of athletic shoes for a child
You are welcome to dismiss it all you like, it won't be a winning strategy come November.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan
What does that $35 per week do for your quality of life though?
lol
quality of life eh?
good luck trying to convince people that keeping more of the money they earn is a bad thing....
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The Constitution was amended in 1913 to pave the way for Income Taxes. It was even reversed by the SCOTUS before being ratified in the early 1900's. Our founding fathers were trying to GET AWAY from taxation without representation. Remember that gem in school Krazy?
Income tax was the ushering in of the Progressive movement in the US and has since become the US governments greatest source of income.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan
$11 per week is a cell phone bill, and netflix
$11 per week is a utility bill
$11 per week is a pair of athletic shoes for a child
You are welcome to dismiss it all you like, it won't be a winning strategy come November.
You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though. Those aren't additional expenses you're taking on that $11/week somehow enables. $11/week works out to 27.5 cents per hour. You tell me, Taco Bell offers that to people every 90 days, the government just made that up to you in a 1 time temporary increase for a couple years. Which one if either is actually going to impact your quality of life?
Does it appreciably get you closer to making proper savings contributions? The answer to that is no since you still need to be putting $36,000 between yourself and your spouse aside if you want to actually retire one day. And at 50k you're talking about that being about 85% of your post tax income. That $35/week doesn't make up the difference and in 7 years from now you'll actually be paying more in taxes.
Face it, it was a bad bill and a bad plan.
originally posted by: Aazadan
So you bring in about $60k.
An extra 1400 is 2%, and you got it as a bonus not as a raise. Furthermore it expires for you after just a couple years.
Cost of living is 3.5% per year. Congratulations, you lost purchasing power on this.
If you're not getting a minimum of a 6% raise every single year you're effectively going backwards.
originally posted by: matafuchs
I am not talking about myself however I will have a few extra thousand a year(taxed bonuses too) and if I care to I can put it in a 401k or I can take the family on a cruise.
2 totally different things since you believe everyone should kick 20k into a 401k account when there are those who do not make that in a year and are supporting kids. THEIR choice and they have to make sure they provide. It is not up to the government to provide if they have kids and live outside their means.
70% of Americans have no or less than a 1000.00 in savings. For these people, a tax break is the difference between Ramen all week or maybe some proteins or fresh veggies.
Wages were stagnant. Jobs were down. A decade of non-growth and now that it is happening the DNC wants to shut it back down because they want slaves not free trade and a working class.
originally posted by: Edumakated
You need to get out of your upper middle class bubble... it may not seem like a lot to you, but there are some people in where $35 or $50/mo is the difference between being positive and negative cash flow for the month.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan
I got a idea. let corporations Co fund Infrastructure projects For tax breaks.
originally posted by: cynicalheathen
I wish. Individually, no, as a household, yes. My payscale doesn't even top out at 60,000.
I got it as a reduction in the 47% effective total tax rate I already pay. Regardless of when it expires, I sure do welcome it now.
Man I wish. It costs me a lot more than 3.5% of my income to live. Where do you live that cheaply?
If receiving an extra $1,400 a year in lower taxes is hurting your purchasing power, you're welcome to send it to me.
Well I've been going backwards for the last 20 years or so then. While I did receive a recent raise ( after the $1400 tax relief ), it was only 1.5%.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan
You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though.
you assume too much
your $11 per week is enough to get those if one did not have them
i notice you chose not to touch the athletic shoes, that is interesting
the only bad part of tax relief is removing it
originally posted by: shooterbrody
There's a lot of worthwhile places to spend that money that do a hell of a lot more than buy you 2 cups of coffee per week.
how someone else spends THEIR money is not my concern
funny how none of these issues were THIS important in the last 8 years
you want to pay the govt more, you are allowed
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: matafuchs
I am not talking about myself however I will have a few extra thousand a year(taxed bonuses too) and if I care to I can put it in a 401k or I can take the family on a cruise.
Bonuses are not raises, they're an increase in money based on your base rate. If you were making $50,000 a 2% bonus is worth $1,000. A 2% raise is worth $1,000 every single year. Raises also compound, 3.5% now and 3.5% next year (as I already covered, that should be your minimum rate due to inflation) results in $3,561.25 over two years. If you were simply getting a 3.5% bonus it's $3,500.
A small difference in a small raise over a small time span, but a very big difference when compounded across two decades working a career. Especially since a raise now will also often result in proportional increases come promotion time (it's flawed logic but companies love to give you a x% raise, so if you were underpaid before, post promotion you're still underpaid... this is also true in reverse).
2 totally different things since you believe everyone should kick 20k into a 401k account when there are those who do not make that in a year and are supporting kids. THEIR choice and they have to make sure they provide. It is not up to the government to provide if they have kids and live outside their means.
Just because people make mistakes all the time, doesn't mean that it's the financially smart move. That belief is also 20k per person. If you're married your household should be putting away $40k per year. The median income in the US is $59,000. A two provider household should be bringing in $118,000 before taxes. After taxes that leaves you with around $90k. 90k would enable you to put an appropriate amount into savings, pay a $400 mortgage at 3 payments per month, and make two $250 car payments. Not extravagant living, but totally doable. If you want more than that then earn more than 50% of the population which isn't exactly difficult.
70% of Americans have no or less than a 1000.00 in savings. For these people, a tax break is the difference between Ramen all week or maybe some proteins or fresh veggies.
Incomes have very little correlation with savings. Being good with money isn't an ability you magically gain as your income increases. Look up the concept of lifestyle inflation. People end up spending more (often for little return) and winding up in the same spot as before, where they're living paycheck to paycheck and have little in savings. For example, in reference to the statistic you just cited:
www.financialsamurai.com...
They've got a good graphic about halfway down that page, look at the trendlines, savings as a percentage of income remains rather steady regardless of how much they're bringing in.
Increasing income does little to actually address the low savings rates in the US.
Wages were stagnant. Jobs were down. A decade of non-growth and now that it is happening the DNC wants to shut it back down because they want slaves not free trade and a working class.
Wage stagnation has been an issue for 30 years now, since the mid 80's actually. It will likely take an equally long time to turn around. My theory on why has to do with the CPI reforms which influence inflation rate calculations but that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is that one time bonuses and very short term tax cuts won't turn this around or even provide relief.
Jobs have not been down, with the exception of the last year, there has been job growth every quarter since 2010. Wages have not grown or replaced what was lost, but we're essentially back to the employment levels we were at in 2007.
originally posted by: Edumakated
You need to get out of your upper middle class bubble... it may not seem like a lot to you, but there are some people in where $35 or $50/mo is the difference between being positive and negative cash flow for the month.
I'm not in an upper middle class bubble. I've got a nice job where I'm making a good wage right now but this time last year I was still living on $10,000 per year. I haven't forgotten what it's like to live in poverty in the US. If that's your income you're not getting $35/month, you're getting $0/month, but for the sake of argument, even at that income $45 (rounded up from $11/week) is not a lot of money. Most likely it's the difference between a food budget of $100 and $145. That means a little more meat and some vegetables, but it's not life altering. Most of your meals will still be junk food.
Of course, as I said, that's at $10,000/year in income at which point you get $0 from this tax rebate. In order to get $35/month you need to be making about $50k/year which should translate (using the idea of 15% of your budget to food) to changing your food budget from $625 per month to $660 per month which is a very small change.
If you're bringing in $50k annually $35 should not be making the difference between positive and negative cash flow per month. At that income you're bringing in $3500 per month, are you arguing that a 1% change is the difference between making and losing money?
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan
I got a idea. let corporations Co fund Infrastructure projects For tax breaks.
They tried it in Japan and it failed miserably. Every road that goes anywhere useful is now a toll road. So now they pay taxes for road upkeep, and then they pay tolls to access the roads. I would rather that not happen here, it would destroy our economy.
If we want to fix this we need to start shrinking wealth inequality
If $11/week means anything to you, you're not in a financially secure enough position to have a kid so that shouldn't ever come up if there's any truth to the theory that economics shape personal responsibility.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: rickymouse
I think it is better if we create more manufacturers so that more people can pay in taxes. Sometimes I wonder about those Democrats, who the hell are they working for anyway, the EU? Maybe China or Russia, somehow I think their minds have been compromised, we should take care of our own first, creating taxpayers.
We create more manufacturers....how do WE do that?
people do that, and people don't want to pay a livable wage..so they open a plant in China.
Now, don't get me wrong, manufacturing will one day return to the USA, once robots are cheap and efficient enough to fully automate their plants so they don't have to pay for chinese slave labor.
You remind me of when Obama asked if Trump had a magic wand for 3% growth.
Pointless. Oh...echo chamber points. gotcha.
Tell me, do you run a business?
Would you buy your materials that you use and sell for 1$ a pound, or 20$ a pound?
What if the 20$ a pound was made in the USA, and the other in China....I am sure you would be patriotic and buy the 20/pound of course...granted, your business would flop because your competitor did the opposite, but principles and stuff.
oh...but Trump is such a savage he is gonna make it to where its only 15$ a pound!!!
Yep...so....cant beat China unless we enact slavery and remove all regulations...and give land to the corporations...and don't tax em.
But hey, I am sure you got your own magic wand
Tariffs...oh, wow...gonna charge 20% extra for steel beams. so what they will do is just draw a smiley face on a beam and import it as art. Its symbolic
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: dothedew
Democrats: "You will get mealy peanuts!"
Also Democrats: "We need those peanuts pumped back into government! Think of all the roads we can build!"
F them and the taxpayer funded horses they rode in on. They want to take the money, the PEOPLE'S MONEY that they should be getting back, and pour it into quite possible one of the most wasteful programs in the entire country.
It goes without saying though, whenever they see a an extra dime of someone else's money, they immediately think of a plan to spend it, as well as an upcoming plan to spend another $10 of your money that you can't afford to begin with.
This is opposed to the Republican tax plan of cutting taxes without first figuring out how to pay for government expenses that didn't change.