IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates

[christiefan915]

Working counter to one's own interests is a sign of neither sanity nor intelligence.

If I shared financial info with you, you'd realize how stupid your comments were about liberals and government handouts. Since when does being a political liberal preclude capitalism?

The difference between you and me is that I've never once driven past the projects, checked out the shoes and clothing, and whined that moochers are spending my hard-earned tax money on Air Jordans or Ipods.

What a way to live. Doesn't seem like your money's making you very happy.

 

[Big Money]

If I shared financial info with you, you'd realize how stupid your comments were about liberals and government handouts.

If...

 

[christiefan915]

If...

Should I have said "when"?

 

[Big Money]

Should I have said "when"?

Only if you're going to dish.

Are you?

 

[Airstrip One]

If I shared financial info with you, you'd realize how stupid your comments were about liberals and government handouts. Since when does being a political liberal preclude capitalism?

The difference between you and me is that I've never once driven past the projects, checked out the shoes and clothing, and whined that moochers are spending my hard-earned tax money on Air Jordans or Ipods.

What a way to live. Doesn't seem like your money's making you very happy.

So, you view waste as an acceptable cost within the welfare sector - a program which is designed to get people by each month, until they can reasonably and responsibly budget their way out of welfare?

 

[Annie]

If I shared financial info with you, you'd realize how stupid your comments were about liberals and government handouts. Since when does being a political liberal preclude capitalism?

The difference between you and me is that I've never once driven past the projects, checked out the shoes and clothing, and whined that moochers are spending my hard-earned tax money on Air Jordans or Ipods.

What a way to live. Doesn't seem like your money's making you very happy.

Then again, one would assume your interactions with those in the projects would be seldom and at a distance. We've only Taft's word for it, but he claims to be in NYPD, and have reasons to see more frequently.

My feelings on this more closely mirror your own, how those in projects or in middle-upper suburbs choose to spend their money is up to them.

I think Taft's 'complaints' are on the level of he works hard for his money and chooses to save and marshall his income for the future and present. He has little faith that if he doesn't provide for himself and any other dependents, the gov't isn't going to. That precludes spending a couple hundred on athletic shoes and such. Probably true for most of us. When he sees those in Sec 8 housing, with SNAP and other benefits choosing to spend so much, for goods with limited duration, it pisses him off.

I see a desire to 'get ahead' by projection of what one thinks are the 'signs' of arrival. I think it's a failing idea, most of us learned that when we 'got' that toy we so desperately wanted, to find it wasn't all that.

 

[christiefan915]

Only if you're going to dish.

Are you?

I will if you will.

 

[christiefan915]

So, you view waste as an acceptable cost within the welfare sector - a program which is designed to get people by each month, until they can reasonably and responsibly budget their way out of welfare?

I don't believe waste is acceptable in any sector. I also don't have a knee jerk reaction that all welfare recipients are gaming the system.

Haven't you ever, either through work, church or organization, given luxuries to the poor? My BFF works in a hospital and every Christmas they get lists from poor kids, then they get donations from staff to help fill the requests. Last year my friend bought Ipods for her "list" family. So you can't assume that everything the poor get, they got through government handouts.

 

[Big Money]

I also don't have a knee jerk reaction that all welfare recipients are gaming the system.

Who did?

 

[Airstrip One]

I don't believe waste is acceptable in any sector. I also don't have a knee jerk reaction that all welfare recipients are gaming the system.

Haven't you ever, either through work, church or organization, given luxuries to the poor? My BFF works in a hospital and every Christmas they get lists from poor kids, then they get donations from staff to help fill the requests. Last year my friend bought Ipods for her "list" family. So you can't assume that everything the poor get, they got through government handouts.

My charity work involves food banks, grocery vouchers, and utilities/rent assistance. I have never really had to think about or concern myself with welfare abuse/waste.

 

[Annie]

So, you view waste as an acceptable cost within the welfare sector - a program which is designed to get people by each month, until they can reasonably and responsibly budget their way out of welfare?

I don't like the idea of waste. I chose NOT to buy my kids super expensive jeans, handbags, and athletic shoes when they were in school. I didn't buy them cell phones or laptops. I did buy them reasonable clothing, shoes, purses while they were in school, actually I gave them a set amount of money to spend at the beginning of school year and in March for purchases for clothes, shoes, and school supplies, over and above list required. We had two desktop computers in family room, one PC and one Mac.

My resources were limited and they knew it. They also knew that college costs would be on them and/or their dad, but they'd have to take him to court to get him to contribute and none of them wanted to do so. Even so, they all managed to procure what they felt was necessary. My daughter spent less on some items, to get one Coach purse at an outlet. The youngest spent $230 on running shoes, but he did win All State. The middle son was always low maintenance and banked some of his allotment.

That is a simplification of each of them over 4 years. While they all had part-time jobs in high school, the daughter and youngest were so involved in extra-curricular their time was limited to off-season weekends. While the 3 differed in interests, abilities, concerns of popularity, they made their choices. All 3 bought cell phones while in high school, I thought it a stupid choice. One bought a lap top, I didn't see the logic, when for no cost could use what we had.

We had tv/cable in family room, living room, my room, and when my parents were with us-their room. When cable was installed, I put outlets in the 3 BR, basement, family room, living room, and kitchen. I would not put tv's in kids rooms. One child bought a tv.

No Tekky, I do NOT have cable now, haven't for over 3 years, I was addressing when I was working a 'real job.'

 

[christiefan915]

My charity work involves food banks, grocery vouchers, and utilities/rent assistance. I have never really had to think about or concern myself with welfare abuse/waste.

My charity work involves the needy, too, and that's how I know that they may get nice things as donations.

 

[Big Money]

My charity work involves the needy, too, and that's how I know that they may get nice things as donations.

May...

 

[Taft2016]

I don't like the idea of waste. I chose NOT to buy my kids super expensive jeans, handbags, and athletic shoes when they were in school. I didn't buy them cell phones or laptops. I did buy them reasonable clothing, shoes, purses while they were in school, actually I gave them a set amount of money to spend at the beginning of school year and in March for purchases for clothes, shoes, and school supplies, over and above list required. We had two desktop computers in family room, one PC and one Mac.

My resources were limited and they knew it. They also knew that college costs would be on them and/or their dad, but they'd have to take him to court to get him to contribute and none of them wanted to do so. Even so, they all managed to procure what they felt was necessary. My daughter spent less on some items, to get one Coach purse at an outlet. The youngest spent $230 on running shoes, but he did win All State. The middle son was always low maintenance and banked some of his allotment.

That is a simplification of each of them over 4 years. While they all had part-time jobs in high school, the daughter and youngest were so involved in extra-curricular their time was limited to off-season weekends. While the 3 differed in interests, abilities, concerns of popularity, they made their choices. All 3 bought cell phones while in high school, I thought it a stupid choice. One bought a lap top, I didn't see the logic, when for no cost could use what we had.

We had tv/cable in family room, living room, my room, and when my parents were with us-their room. When cable was installed, I put outlets in the 3 BR, basement, family room, living room, and kitchen. I would not put tv's in kids rooms. One child bought a tv.

No Tekky, I do NOT have cable now, haven't for over 3 years, I was addressing when I was working a 'real job.'

I *can* afford cable, but I chose not to get it either. Or a highspeed internet connection. I'm getting nearer to a replacement for my 20 year old clunker car. I grew up my entire childhood in a home below the poverty level. I never felt poor because my parents knew the right choices to make. I learned from them and operate my household along the same lines.

I look at public housing developments in NYC and wonder:

*why are they wired for cable television?
*why are they wired for high speed internet access?
*why do they have expansive parking lots for cars when they were built near subway stations by design?

We're supposed to be subsidizing the housing of the poor.

The whole situation is really a sick joke. A huge percentage of this "poor" population has jobs "off the books." They get paid in cash, have no reportable income, and collect the full benefits package. The notion of a "rainy day" is entirely alien to them because any rain is warded off by the government umbrella. Which I pay for, and which won't be around for me until I'm submit entirely to government dependence like they do.

 

[The Dude]

Seriously, can we stop complaining that the poor get free:
Phones
Food, plenty of it
Insurance subsidies
Subsidized cable and High speed Internet
Weight loss medication
College tuition

Ok so I left out thirty things
There has too be something the middle class has that the poor don't!

Besides bill paying stress that is

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

The notion of a "rainy day" is entirely alien to them because any rain is warded off by the government umbrella. Which I pay for, and which won't be around for me until I'm submit entirely to government dependence like they do.

So what are you waiting for?

 

[kiki]

I *can* afford cable, but I chose not to get it either. Or a highspeed internet connection. I'm getting nearer to a replacement for my 20 year old clunker car. I grew up my entire childhood in a home below the poverty level. I never felt poor because my parents knew the right choices to make. I learned from them and operate my household along the same lines.

I look at public housing developments in NYC and wonder:

*why are they wired for cable television?
*why are they wired for high speed internet access?
*why do they have expansive parking lots for cars when they were built near subway stations by design?

We're supposed to be subsidizing the housing of the poor.

The whole situation is really a sick joke. A huge percentage of this "poor" population has jobs "off the books." They get paid in cash, have no reportable income, and collect the full benefits package. The notion of a "rainy day" is entirely alien to them because any rain is warded off by the government umbrella. Which I pay for, and which won't be around for me until I'm submit entirely to government dependence like they do.

Why do you lump the poor into one category? Would cages be more suitable?
Your sentiments remind of what Santorum said: "Obama is a snob because be wants everybody in America to go to college."

 

[Taft2016]

Why do you lump the poor into one category?

Interesting question, coming from the sector that would categorize a cop/nurse married couple making $250K a year as "the rich", lumping them into the same category as those with assets of $1 billion or more.

If you truly wanted to tax the wealthy, you'd tax wealth, wouldn't you?

You do realize that people can be worth billions of dollars in accumulated assets and have virtually no reportable income, right?

Yet in the mind of the liberal, the cop/nurse married couple could be Ross Perot as far as they're concerned.

 

[christiefan915]

Then again, one would assume your interactions with those in the projects would be seldom and at a distance. We've only Taft's word for it, but he claims to be in NYPD, and have reasons to see more frequently.

You can't live in Pittsburgh and NOT be within shouting distance of a poor neighborhood, so I see a lot more than you think.

My feelings on this more closely mirror your own, how those in projects or in middle-upper suburbs choose to spend their money is up to them. I think Taft's 'complaints' are on the level of he works hard for his money and chooses to save and marshall his income for the future and present.

My opinion is that the vast majority of people operate from this same position.

He has little faith that if he doesn't provide for himself and any other dependents, the gov't isn't going to.

Everybody wants their lives to be comfortable and financially stress-free as possible. Nobody I know who lost jobs in the recession wanted government aid, they wanted to earn a living again. Welfare was the last resort, when unemployment and savings ran out.

That precludes spending a couple hundred on athletic shoes and such. Probably true for most of us. When he sees those in Sec 8 housing, with SNAP and other benefits choosing to spend so much, for goods with limited duration, it pisses him off.

So what if it pisses him off? He's making a judgment based on little information to go on except Air Jordans. One of my best buddy neighbors (a conservative guy BTW) has been off work almost five years because he had brain cancer, now thankfully in remission. Yet in the past two years he's had quite a bit of work done on the house, refreshed the landscaping and did some interior upgrades. Maybe people think how did they afford this with only one partner working? Well, his mom died and he got substantial money from the estate and put it into property upkeep. maybe some of the other neighbors think he's taking from the system because they don't know every particular. And that's what I'm criticizing about Daft. Unless he's a social worker and has specific case information, he's just guessing about how poor people get what he calls "luxuries."

I see a desire to 'get ahead' by projection of what one thinks are the 'signs' of arrival. I think it's a failing idea, most of us learned that when we 'got' that toy we so desperately wanted, to find it wasn't all that.

You might be surprised to know that I have heard the term "ghetto fabulous."

The bottom line is, I don't care who has what or how they got it. It doesn't make me some kind of moralistic goody two-shoes; I literally do not care, and I refuse to go through life with a chip on my shoulder and the attitude that the needy are picking my pocket. Unlike Daft.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Taft and his reverse class envy are quite comedic.