Welcome to the IHoP

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Not trying to be unaccountable for my actions, its just that I only remember maybe 3 or 4 hours from the last day...

[Tirefryr 1,742]

I would love to jump in on all this, but alas. . .

[Godsmack 361]

Well I will say this, as a government employee they are not paying me a high enough salary to be the cause of all this. Hell I earn less than a median income. FAR less.

Bastards.

[dem beats 1,223]

only people who earn above a median have either education, experience, or put in more than their "40 a week".

Heck I was making 65-70k a year at 20. Managing retail. But I worked 72 hours most weeks.

[dem beats 1,223]

damn I got a TOP last page!

[Tmax98 3]

wow this is gettin deep

[Acidburn 10]

http://jalopnik.com/5060168/stuart-appleby...-in-full-detail

best link you've ever posted

<-- somewhat surprised you like it

Where in my post does it say I liked it?

"best" generally implies some level of quality

I assumed you meant the content of the link, rather than the link itself

[seanbw 1]

Group: SSA Audio Tech Team

Posts: 30,000

Joined: 1-September 05

From: MN

holy crap m5

[Acidburn 10]

ha, congrats Sean

whore

[KU40 173]

I would love to jump in on all this, but alas. . .

Please do. I respect other people's opinions and I think the rest of these people do too. I also have an open mind.

[dem beats 1,223]

I love political and economy talk......Wise people talk about ideas.

=)

[topgun 262]

Well, that just killed another couple dozen brain cells. Used another gallon of deft on concrete forms, good lord that stuff smells.

[KU40 173]

What I really mean, is it makes no sense to punish those who have more and are growing and expanding to a higher level than those that remain stagnant. I think to reward ecenomic and other growth is more appropriate.

Anything but the swelling and corrupting of our current governmental system.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. But my positions are based on my ways of thinking, which is from a cost perspective, not an earnings perspective. That is to say, I think about things in the way of "I have x amount to spend, let me see what I can get for this," not "I want product y, but it's not in my budget. I'm going to ask for a raise so that I can get it." I'm a pretty simple person, I don't demand much other than the necessities of life. I've never been a person who wants to buy that 10 bedroom mansion in orange county, I'd be more happy with a log cabin with a fishing pond in the backyard. If I made a million a year, it wouldn't matter if I got taxed 35% or 45%, because I wouldn't know what to do with either 650,000 or 550,000. I'd give most of it to my parents so that they can start doing what they want in life, which I know wouldn't cost more than 30k a year or something anyways.

It's like my dad has told me, people who make 100,000 a year can be just as broke as people who make 30,000 a year. It's all in how you spend.

Your example of a rich person renting porsches and having house maids and all could be interpreted in a different way though. Yeah his invested 100k could stimulate the market, but what if he took that 100k and gave 2-3 people a job in his company? And taxes that we all pay go to the government, who is the largest employer in the US. Yeah they misappropriate funds and things, but that's another issue. I also agree about not liking inefficiency, but if everybody worked as hard as they can, an employer may be able to cut one or two jobs in areas that are duplicated. That wouldn't be good either.

I agree that people shouldn't be punished for dreaming big and achieving it. But isn't there some price point where their earnings just get excessive?

[JimJ 11]

But isn't there some price point where their earnings just get excessive?

I can't see that. If you don't like the fact that a company is making what you think is an obscene profit, bypass them and do something different I dislike oil companies for the environmental impacts they've created, but I can't be upset about how much money they're making if I'm complicit in that profit.

[Acidburn 10]

Well, that just killed another couple dozen brain cells. Used another gallon of deft on concrete forms, good lord that stuff smells.

respirator?

[Acidburn 10]

/\ TOP

[JimJ 11]

I have a massive headache, and I don't know why

I'm getting stressed about next week early, I guess

[dem beats 1,223]

Your example of a rich person renting porsches and having house maids and all could be interpreted in a different way though. Yeah his invested 100k could stimulate the market, but what if he took that 100k and gave 2-3 people a job in his company? And taxes that we all pay go to the government, who is the largest employer in the US. Yeah they misappropriate funds and things, but that's another issue. I also agree about not liking inefficiency, but if everybody worked as hard as they can, an employer may be able to cut one or two jobs in areas that are duplicated. That wouldn't be good either.

This was another paragraph I intented to type but then all hell broke loose. I think we agree. We just see different sides of it.

I agree a bajillion percent. I just don't see much of a difference between him expanding his company and him expanding his lifestyle when it comes to the market place. If he employees 3 people, it's probably better financialy for him. Might get a better return on investment than he would on a porsche. Either way the money goes from him to someone else. when you buy anything you are helping others keep their job. From buying a big bag of bubonic cronic, to buying cement. Someone else lives from what you spent.

it's all either goods or services. When you pay an employee, it's just a service. They trade time for dollars. Increasing taxes takes a slice of that money holds it for a while then puts it out. No one would treat a buisness' finance as poorly as our executive branch in the US does. It needs to be cleaned up.

I would love a cabin with a fishing lake/pond BTW sounds like a dream come true.

That or a Wally power 118.

[dem beats 1,223]

But isn't there some price point where their earnings just get excessive?

I can't see that. If you don't like the fact that a company is making what you think is an obscene profit, bypass them and do something different I dislike oil companies for the environmental impacts they've created, but I can't be upset about how much money they're making if I'm complicit in that profit.

tree hugger!11!!!

[KU40 173]

Your example of a rich person renting porsches and having house maids and all could be interpreted in a different way though. Yeah his invested 100k could stimulate the market, but what if he took that 100k and gave 2-3 people a job in his company? And taxes that we all pay go to the government, who is the largest employer in the US. Yeah they misappropriate funds and things, but that's another issue. I also agree about not liking inefficiency, but if everybody worked as hard as they can, an employer may be able to cut one or two jobs in areas that are duplicated. That wouldn't be good either.

This was another paragraph I intented to type but then all hell broke loose. I think we agree. We just see different sides of it.

I agree a bajillion percent. I just don't see much of a difference between him expanding his company and him expanding his lifestyle when it comes to the market place. If he employees 3 people, it's probably better financialy for him. Might get a better return on investment than he would on a porsche. Either way the money goes from him to someone else. when you buy anything you are helping others keep their job. From buying a big bag of bubonic cronic, to buying cement. Someone else lives from what you spent.

it's all either goods or services. When you pay an employee, it's just a service. They trade time for dollars. Increasing taxes takes a slice of that money holds it for a while then puts it out. No one would treat a buisness' finance as poorly as our executive branch in the US does. It needs to be cleaned up.

I would love a cabin with a fishing lake/pond BTW sounds like a dream come true.

That or a Wally power 118.

Fair enough. I'm definitely not saying we all need to earn 50k a year. I'm no communist. Nor am I trying to say that anybody shouldn't be able to earn a billion dollars a year. Diversity in incomes is essential IMO. I just don't think people who make that much should complain about being taxed more.

This has kinda morphed from the original discussion about higher taxes to the richer, and I want to get back to it for a minute. Not a tax increase, just higher tax bracket. There is the stat that the top 1% pays 80% of the taxes or whatever. Those 1% can see it as bad because they're supporting everybody else. I think the highest tax bracket is 35%, is that right? For middle income, it's 25%. Even if we dropped those highest 1% of income earners down to the same 25%, they'll still be paying like 75% of the overall taxes. That will never change, because their incomes are just so much more. Even if Bill Gates paid 1% taxes, he'd still probably be paying the same amount as 1,000 average people put together.

[dem beats 1,223]

You made a great point.

There has to be a limit though, otherwise, if taxes increase with income ad infinitum, eventualy making more money will be worthless. I beleive it should be a flat % of tax to everyone. That's my personal thought though. Probably wouldn't work in the real world.

[JimJ 11]

But isn't there some price point where their earnings just get excessive?

I can't see that. If you don't like the fact that a company is making what you think is an obscene profit, bypass them and do something different I dislike oil companies for the environmental impacts they've created, but I can't be upset about how much money they're making if I'm complicit in that profit.

tree hugger!11!!!

What I don't understand is why there's all this fervor for offshore oil drilling, but yet when Massachusetts wanted to put a large wind farm off Nantucket they were met with all kinds of NIMBY shit? Are we serious?

Like I said before, as long as people are willing to spend $5k on a TV instead of $5k of renewable energy, we're fucked

[JimJ 11]

I digress though...

[dem beats 1,223]

I do see your point Jim. That is frustrating. I have been looking into alternative forms to power my house. I have been into that scene since about 2003. The problem is there is no return on green energy really. Someday maybe, but the laws of conservation of energy will ALWAYS hold true. No energy is waste free. It's also very costly to set up unless you do more work than most people would be willing to put forth. I wish we would look at wind much closer.

Oil has been so good at being a great multi use product, and we extract so much from it and all the by products. When making for chipsets in computers we have more waste than actual chip and solvents etc.. Allowing builders and home owners to be so wastefull with heat energy is also a big one. We should have much more efficient utilities, and appliances especialy when it comes to gas related.

I think there are so many other places we could trim the fat before we look at big evil oil.

[JimJ 11]

The problem is there is no return on green energy really.

I'll disagree with that as a general statement, I can think of a few exceptions

But yes, right now the biggest incentives for RE can't be reduced to an NPV or something concrete and measurable. I wouldn't mind seeing Carter-style tax rebates to help people with the initial investment...