Conquer Club

pimpdave wrote:There's a reason sleep deprivation is the number one health problem in the USA. You always eat take out, either delivered or something you can pick up on the way home. You don't do your own laundry, and make sure it's either delivered or a dry cleaner with late hours. You do everything you possibly can to ensure a short commute.

There's a reason I don't subject myself to those kinds of hours anymore.

Well, people who live in cities might get deliveries. Those who have money might hire someone to do their own laundry (or a few old-style bachelors, who seriously don't know how). Dry cleaning? Most of us got here maybe once a year.

Of course, I am home with kids, but I mean people who live around me, in this town. It is a working class area. We have 2 truly wealthy people, a few who others like to think are "wealthy", but who.. are not. Most people here struggle. And I mean struggle, workjng hard and long for pay you would consider a pittance.

Pedronicus wrote:The 'trickle down effect' is happening. It's just that no one was aware the pyramid was upside down.

Well... I can remember a couple of jokes about that. as in, it was something else trickling down. If you really listened to Reagan's speeches, he made it clear what his goals were. Its just that too many people only hear what they want to believe.

Now, politicians don't even have to "double speak". People just follow along with what they are told by Fox News and Family LIfe Network.

Player... I'm talking about someone who works as an investment banker. They pretty much all live in cities. And yes, there are laundry services that will pick up from your home and deliver in NYC.

Otherwise, you just use Sunday morning as laundromat time before you head off to the afternoon meeting used to prep for the coming week. (ATTN SINGLE MALES: you actually can meet chicks at the laundromat)

InkL0sed wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:100 hours a week? That is an exaggeration, right?

Only slightly. Realistically it's more like 85-90. Or at least, those were the kinds of hours I was putting in. Maybe I would have gone further if I had put in that extra ten hours a week.

OK, I've thought about this. Let's assume you work 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. That's only 60 hours. How is it even possible that people work 100 hours a week? There are only 168 hours in a week.

I've seen this in the military (and I'm not talking in battlefield conditions either, where it is actually far more rare), so I know it happens. Particularly with the middle-range officers who are pushing themselves for the next promotion.

thegreekdog wrote:Do you think someone who makes $500,000 a year rich? Such that they fit into the quote above?

"Rich" is more defined by total assets than by annual income. A person who makes $500,000 a year but who could go bankrupt if he looses that income for 6 months is not rich; he's just caught in a bigger rat trap than the rest of us.

It's sort of like the person who makes a couple of million dollars in the lottery and realizes that he still has to continue to work if we wants to live comfortably some thirty years from now.

pimpdave wrote:I'm talking about someone who works as an investment banker. They pretty much all live in cities.

Actually, and take it from somebody who knows plenty of banker types, there are quite a lot of concentrated pockets of rural investment banking activity out there.

pimpdave wrote:
(ATTN SINGLE MALES: you actually can meet chicks at the laundromat)

I had to laugh at this, though its not just for men. Back when I was single, I got more than a few dates at the laundromat. I lived near a military base and, apparently, they did not have enough washing machines for a time at the housing complexes where most of them stayed (or maybe it was just that the "word got out" that this was a good place to meet women who were not "princesses")

InkL0sed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:no - she should of pointing them both out. the investment bankers earn enough to make it worthwhile to employ a savvy accountant to avoid paying the whack of tax. The investment bank itself obviously is avoiding tax.

it's the average guy that earns a lot less and pays his full whack of tax that gets fucked in the arse.
If every rich cunt paid the same amount of tax as the average guy, then everyone will pay less tax. A lot less tax.

What? That doesn't even make sense. Investment bankers (the hard working ones, the non-owners, the employees) pay a shitload more taxes than the average guy... at a higher rate... with less deductions. The worst punished people are those that make enough money to have to pay AMT, lose their deductions, and pay at a higher rate, but don't make enough to find loopholes or lobby Congress.

You have the guy who works 10 hours a week, makes $50 million, and pays $2 million of taxes. You have someone who works 100 hours a week and gets paid $300,000 a year only takes home about $150,000 after taxes. And you have someone who works 40 hours a week, has summers off, and gets paid $50,000 a year and takes home $45,000. There's a problem there. The problem is that the second guy is getting his ass kicked.

100 hours a week? That is an exaggeration, right?

I know more than a few people who work at least 75, and possibly up to 85...I don't know how.

STAY IN SCHOOL!!!

The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

thegreekdog wrote:The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

I pay about 250/week in taxes (500 always missing). I dropped my health insurance to offset some of that. (omg I don't have health insurance! OMG!!!!) Before, all said and done, I got to keep about 45% of my paycheck. That will not stretch very far with higher gas taxes and a new 15-20% vat tax and a new health-care tax and a higher federal income tax. Hopefully, my state and city will not raise taxes and I can still afford to feed my family butter sandwiches and rain water.

Seriously, I do not even want to think about how much I will have left. 15-20% of my paycheck? I will not be a slave.

That shit happens and I am going Hardcore Fucking Galt.

Phatscotty wrote:I can still afford to feed my family butter and rain water.

Have you ever heard of scurvy?

Scurvy was invented at McGill University in 1765, and distributed amongst the British liberally.

Pedronicus wrote:Scurvy was invented at McGill University in 1765, and distributed amongst the British liberally.

dang dude I just took you off foe. Don't start trolling me when I'm griping about my families struggles through the recession, even if child Doc put's you up to it.

Or, maybe you guys are just the caring people you say you are? not sure

I am sure that you're credibility may by slightly damaged the next time you start swearing at people in hatred, in defense of the "people who are struggling".

Phatscotty wrote:"people who are struggling".

...with scurvy

Scott, my earnings are being eroded by not having a pay rise for 3 years, whilst petrol and inflation are just going up and up.

sometimes I'll get on here and moan like f*ck, other times I'll get on here and f*ck around. It all depends what mood I'm in. Right now I'm in the latter mood.

The west is going to take a hit, regardless of what party is making the rules.

thegreekdog wrote:The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

No, the people getting taxed are wage earners. Those making money off investments, real estate, inheritances, etc are not paying near as much in taxes as the rest. For one thing, there are plenty of loopholes.

Mostly, its only when you try to take a paycheck, be it from wages or cashing dividend checks to spend, etc, that you wind up paying taxes. You can accrue lots of wealth and power without paying a dime if you simply reinvest it. AND, because so many things are allowed as "legitimate business expenses", you can live pretty decently without showing much or any income. That is even without the games people play like shoving money offshore, etc.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

I pay about 250/week in taxes (500 always missing). I dropped my health insurance to offset some of that. (omg I don't have health insurance! OMG!!!!) Before, all said and done, I got to keep about 45% of my paycheck. That will not stretch very far with higher gas taxes and a new 15-20% vat tax and a new health-care tax and a higher federal income tax. Hopefully, my state and city will not raise taxes and I can still afford to feed my family butter sandwiches and rain water.

Seriously, I do not even want to think about how much I will have left. 15-20% of my paycheck? I will not be a slave.

That shit happens and I am going Hardcore Fucking Galt.

If you are paying 80-85% in taxes, you are doing something seriously wrong.

Else... I thought you said that the government had no right to insist that companies pay better wages. Seems like you are disagreeing.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

I pay about 250/week in taxes (500 always missing). I dropped my health insurance to offset some of that. (omg I don't have health insurance! OMG!!!!) Before, all said and done, I got to keep about 45% of my paycheck. That will not stretch very far with higher gas taxes and a new 15-20% vat tax and a new health-care tax and a higher federal income tax. Hopefully, my state and city will not raise taxes and I can still afford to feed my family butter sandwiches and rain water.

Seriously, I do not even want to think about how much I will have left. 15-20% of my paycheck? I will not be a slave.

That shit happens and I am going Hardcore Fucking Galt.

If you are paying 80-85% in taxes, you are doing something seriously wrong.

Else... I thought you said that the government had no right to insist that companies pay better wages. Seems like you are disagreeing.

No, no no no. The taxes I mentioned,which have not taken effect yet, also inclue my health insurace (sorry). I am paying 55% in Health Insurance and taxes. (since I said I keep 45%...) just a point about why I dropped HI. Have to pay too much in taxes, and even with my HI, HC costs a furtune anyways, so wtf might as well pay cash as try to negotiate a deal. not really the point, just a sidenote...

If those taxes go into effect, yes, I could very well be in 85%. Dont forget, that 45% I keep does not include gas-taxes, state sales taxes (6.65% here) city tax (1.something %) property taxes, tabs/roads taxes, utility taxes, communication taxes...jesus christ this is depressing. So you see, the 45% I do keep is open to an entire new round of taxation, and of that, I might only keep 35%. THEN, with the aforementioned tax increases coming in jan. 2011, easily could BE 85%. Think about it.

I am only making 2 figures, and nowhere close to the magic 3 figure dream. Luckily, there is plenty enough leftover every week for me to have extra and build a savings account!

Phatscotty wrote:jesus christ this is depressing, suitable for any depression I suppose.

re evaluate your vote in the fear index. we have many wonderful mental options to chose from

rockfist wrote:Scotty, we are going to start fixing this soon. It can only get better and it will. People are seeing the progressives for what they are. But we must never forget and never let our children forget.

They are working hard to erase it...

We are going to have to make sacrifices, we are going to have to change our conversation, we are going to have to change our traditions, our history. We are going to have to move into a different place as a nation...

- Michelle Obama

Pedronicus wrote:Scott, my earnings are being eroded by not having a pay rise for 3 years, whilst petrol and inflation are just going up and up.

Shit, I've hadn't had a pay raise in 5 years. Of course when I converted from employee to consultant (after first being made "redundant") my income practically doubled so I'm still catching up.

tzor wrote:I've hadn't had a pay raise in 5 years.

Then you should have worked harder!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:The overall point here is that some people are taxed out of proportion to their overall wealth (as tzor puts it) because of the way our federal income tax system works. I don't make as much money as investment bankers, but I really get squeezed... enough that I've been thinking about a career change because it's not worth it anymore.

So, when I hear people saying we have to punish the fatcats and the rich, I want to know what their definition of "rich" is. Because some of the "rich" people are getting punished enough.

No, the people getting taxed are wage earners. Those making money off investments, real estate, inheritances, etc are not paying near as much in taxes as the rest. For one thing, there are plenty of loopholes.

Mostly, its only when you try to take a paycheck, be it from wages or cashing dividend checks to spend, etc, that you wind up paying taxes. You can accrue lots of wealth and power without paying a dime if you simply reinvest it. AND, because so many things are allowed as "legitimate business expenses", you can live pretty decently without showing much or any income. That is even without the games people play like shoving money offshore, etc.

Yes, Player, I agree... and that's pretty much what I've said in my previous posts in this forum - wage-earners (and salary-earners) that make a whole bunch of money pay a whole bunch of taxes. Also, when you get a check (as an employee, dividend earner, whatever) you're taxed on it. There is no, "Oh, I got this paycheck, let me move it overseas." That's not true. What you do have are people, usually business owners, who have money overseas and try to repatriate the money back to the U.S. without paying taxes. That can no longer occur. Even further, if you reinvest money, you cannot use that money without being taxed on it. You can hold it, certainly, and not be taxed on it, but eventually you will be taxed on it.

So, as an example, if I get a $3,000 paycheck, I get taxes taken out of that (withheld) at the federal, state, and perhaps local level. I take whatever is left (let's say it's $1,800). Now, I can take that money and pay my school loans and interest on the school loans (which is no longer deductible because I make too much money), but I don't do the realistic thing. Instead, I invest in the stock market. If I get dividends, they are taxed, if I sell my stock, it is taxed. In effect, I'm taxed at least twice on the same money.

Anyway, I digressed a lot here. My point is that unless you really are wealthy (and not just some schlub making a good salary), you're screwed by taxes. Absolutely screwed.

King Doctor wrote:

tzor wrote:I've hadn't had a pay raise in 5 years.

Then you should have worked harder!

That doesn't count as a pay raise, does it?
Yes, I am currently an "hourly" employee, the more I work the more I get paid; on the other hand, the "budget" for me is only so big.

tzor wrote:

King Doctor wrote:

tzor wrote:I've hadn't had a pay raise in 5 years.

Then you should have worked harder!

That doesn't count as a pay raise, does it?
Yes, I am currently an "hourly" employee, the more I work the more I get paid; on the other hand, the "budget" for me is only so big.

Thats weird. For me, the more I make the more they take!

and to King Doc: My level of production and efficiency has NOTHING TO DO with my Union freezing my wages for the last 4 years just so that our health care deduction only rises 3%, you ignorant prick.

As you probably do not know, my co-workers who moves slower than molasses gets the exact same raises as I do.