# Ski Resort Managers Rejoice!



## AdironRider (Jun 30, 2015)

And I suspect F&B managers are dancing in the streets as well with Obama's new decree that salaried employees below 50k will qualify for overtime. 

My wife is a manager for a ski resort, and while I'm sure they will pull some chicanery that ultimately screws us, at face value we just a nice pay raise considering she puts in at least 50 hours a week, all year round. 

I do wonder what this will do for ski resorts, whose whole employment model revolves around paying people dirt because their is a line out the door to replace them.


----------



## Edd (Jun 30, 2015)

I wonder how often F & B managers actually dance in the streets.


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 30, 2015)

Edd said:


> I wonder how often F & B managers actually dance in the streets.




Probably pretty often, its just between 1 and 4am when most normal folk are sleeping. While at the time I had fun, now that I'm past thirty I put more faith in the "nothing good happens after midnight" mantra.


----------



## Edd (Jun 30, 2015)

My fiancé works at a ski area year round. She's got some thoughts about this, which I won't yak on about, but the business model will require adjustment (stating obvious). We also discuss a future brain drain; truly knowledgable employees being in shorter supply down the line, unlikely to be replaced.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 30, 2015)

It's a step in the right direction.  I averaged over 80 hours per week during ski season as an F&B manager.  

Only thing I have an issue with is the rather arbitrary $50K cut off.  That's great if you live up in Rangeley and are a manager at Saddleback.  That sucks if you work in Aspen.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 30, 2015)

They'll hire more managers so nobody works over 40 hours. Look for hours to potentially be cut in some cases.  Don't count on a pay raise. And it's not official yet, is it?


.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 30, 2015)

At the time, I would have been perfectly happy with my salary at 40 hours.  At 80+?  Hell no it was never worth it.   

Food service managers are some of the most abused workers in this country.   I loved the intensity of the business, but the quality of life sucks.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 30, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> They'll hire more managers so nobody works over 40 hours. Look for hours to potentially be cut in some cases.  Don't count on a pay raise. And it's not official yet, is it?
> 
> 
> .



Honestly there's really not enough qualified or ambitious enough people to fill the slots. At least in my little world


----------



## snoseek (Jun 30, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> At the time, I would have been perfectly happy with my salary at 40 hours.  At 80+?  Hell no it was never worth it.
> 
> Food service managers are some of the most abused workers in this country.   I loved the intensity of the business, but the quality of life sucks.



This is why I got the hell out of year round positions. I make roughly the same money and get big breaks in between usually. With that said I just worked the last 4 weeks without aday off and I'm so damn tired. Being seasonal I can negotiate a good hourly wage so when those 80 hour weeks come I'm getting paid


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 1, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> It's a step in the right direction.  I averaged over 80 hours per week during ski season as an F&B manager.
> 
> Only thing I have an issue with is the rather arbitrary $50K cut off.  That's great if you live up in Rangeley and are a manager at Saddleback.  That sucks if you work in Aspen.



I think you would be surprised just how little ski resort managers make, even at premier locations out West. 

They certainly make more than Saddleback managers I'm sure, but not by much, and it actually feels like less when a 1 bedroom rathole rental runs 2k+ (like here in Jackson, Aspen, etc).


----------



## mbedle (Jul 1, 2015)

I would guess that some resorts will look at adjust some salaries up to avoid the overtime issue. If you are working 20-30 hours overtime during the ski season, a 40+K per year employee is going to bring home more than 50K in pay.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

Really?  I was pulling down high 40s 12 years ago at Wisp and Snowshoe.  I'd figure those same jobs today are over 50k in those locations and more like 70-90k out west.  Thats why the $50K figure seemed not great as a threshold.  These were Assistant F&B Director jobs.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 1, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I would guess that some resorts will look at adjust some salaries up to avoid the overtime issue. If you are working 20-30 hours overtime during the ski season, a 40+K per year employee is going to bring home more than 50K in pay.



When all is said and done, I think you will see more folks moved to hourly, and they'll try and hire more entry level, seasonal employees.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 1, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Really?  I was pulling down high 40s 12 years ago at Wisp and Snowshoe.  I'd figure those same jobs today are over 50k in those locations and more like 70-90k out west.  Thats why the $50K figure seemed not great as a threshold.  These were Assistant F&B Director jobs.



Directors yes, I think you are accurate, maybe a bit high, but not to far off. I'm thinking the next rung down, the managers of specific outlets, departments, etc.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 1, 2015)

AdironRider said:


> When all is said and done, I think you will see more folks moved to hourly, and they'll try and hire more entry level, seasonal employees.



That's what I'm thinking.  Just like when the regulations went into effect with the definition of "full time" for hourly workers being 32 hours with respect to the Affordable Care Act and healthcare benefits and how that caused a significant change in the number of hours worked for many in the workforce to get around it, I suspect something similar in this case for salaried employees, not to mention at least that they'll also have to be punching a time clock now to see how many hours they are actually working.

Just like many a law/regulation that has been pitched to the public as being "for the worker" in the end it will likely end up being more for the corporation once/if this enacted and we see how business reacts to it......


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 1, 2015)

Look for lots of managers to start making $50,001 per year.  8)


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

32 hours as a qualifier for full time employment and benefits has been a standard for most companies long before ACA.  At minimum as long as I've been in the workforce (early 90s). The ACA was just following the lead of socially responsible private business.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 1, 2015)

Why make a level?  Everyone that is salaried works more than 40 hours a week.  Why should we all get the mandatory overtime for the time put in?  I have been on vacation since 6/20 and have been on three to four calls a day.  Some vacation and I get no additional pay.  

Oh wait, people at my level can afford it. F that.  Just another way this administration is turning unequal ways to make things even.


and let's give everyone trophies.


----------



## dlague (Jul 1, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Why make a level?  Everyone that is salaried works more than 40 hours a week.  Why should we all get the mandatory overtime for the time put in?  I have been on vacation since 6/20 and have been on three to four calls a day.  Some vacation and I get no additional pay.
> 
> Oh wait, people at my level can afford it. F that.  Just another way this administration is turning unequal ways to make things even.
> 
> ...



It is like the arbitrary $250K level related to taxes - total BS!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

I put in my 50+ too and take calls on vacation.  

That said, I do so by choice. 

When I was putting in 80+ in a F&B management positions, it was not by choice.  It was the unwillingness of Intrawest and other large corporate entities to hire additional management/supervisor help and setting forth unreasonable expectations for labor cost percentages on line level staff.

The regulations are needed to protect such workers from those unreasonable work environments.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 1, 2015)

The real tragedy here is that Puck It has so much vacation time after the ski season.  


.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 1, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Don't count on a pay raise. And it's not official yet, is it?



Quite the opposite, expect hourly wages to be adjusted down to make up for the mandatory OT. Or, look for a big cut in hours to avoid OT completely. I would not be surprised to see a cut in hours big enough for businesses to kill two birds with one stone...avoiding OT and providing health insurance.

And the consumer should expect a decrease in customer service because workers are unlikely to be added.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 1, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I put in my 50+ too and take calls on vacation.
> 
> That said, I do so by choice.
> 
> ...



Not really by choice, if you don't then expect your review to reflect it. Thus the raise.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 1, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> The real tragedy here is that Puck It has so much vacation time after the ski season.
> 
> 
> .


I take calls when I am skiing too.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jul 1, 2015)

Salary should be salary. I don't want to punch a clock as a salaried employee. Then my 32 hour weeks are over!  Ugh. But seriously - I have a job to do. I do it. For most of May/June it was 50 hrs - but project is on cruise control now so, back to normal. It all evens out. I am paid to carry pager tho - I would never do it otherwise. I also NEVER check in during vacation.  I have strict boundaries around that, no matter what. As long as people know you never check email on vacation they are fine with it. It's those that do check that have problems - because others expect an answer even if you're in vaca.  I get high marks every year for reliability and dependability - so what I do works. Makes up for the shit scores on quality (lmao - just kidding). 

This is is a BAD move - and corporations will be the winners, guaranteed.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jul 1, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Not really by choice, if you don't then expect your review to reflect it. Thus the raise.



Raise first year here was 2%. Last year, no raises for anyone. In my line of work - you have to jump around to get what you're worth - there is no such thing as a good raise. No incentive to go above and beyond for 0% (while Jnsurance premiums and co-pays go up).  Turnover is very high - in 20+ years I've only had 2 managers for longer than a year - waiting out my current one - she's about 10mos in lol.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 1, 2015)

SkiFanE said:


> This is is a BAD move - and corporations will be the winners, guaranteed.



As usual no matter which party is in office.


----------



## Jully (Jul 1, 2015)

While I do think many of the complaints are valid and cutoffs like that are arbitrary, I do think something needs to be done because salaried employees under 50k working massively long weeks just isn't fair. I also don't think that businesses on their own are going to adjust that, at least not the majority of businesses in the near future. It's not perfect, but I think the 50k will be a step in the right direction


----------



## JimG. (Jul 1, 2015)

Jully said:


> While I do think many of the complaints are valid and cutoffs like that are arbitrary, I do think something needs to be done because salaried employees under 50k working massively long weeks just isn't fair. I also don't think that businesses on their own are going to adjust that, at least not the majority of businesses in the near future. It's not perfect, but I think the 50k will be a step in the right direction



While I agree it may not be fair, we live in a capitalist society based on supply and demand. Right now, there is an overabundance of labor and scare employment opportunites. For every worker who complains that it isn't fair for them to work long hours without OT at a job that pays $49,000 there are 10 out of work people who would gladly take that job and work for $48,000 or even $40,000 without OT. That's just a fact. And you can bet the house that this is exactly what businesses will take advantage of to counteract this legislation. 

So I'm not sure this is any kind of solution or even a step in the right direction.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jul 1, 2015)

JimG. said:


> As usual no matter which party is in office.



+10)/so corrupt .


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

JimG. said:


> While I agree it may not be fair, we live in a capitalist society based on supply and demand. Right now, there is an overabundance of labor and scare employment opportunites. For every worker who complains that it isn't fair for them to work long hours without OT at a job that pays $49,000 there are 10 out of work people who would gladly take that job and work for $48,000 or even $40,000 without OT. That's just a fact. And you can bet the house that this is exactly what businesses will take advantage of to counteract this legislation.
> 
> So I'm not sure this is any kind of solution or even a step in the right direction.



I don't think it's as cut and dry as salary paid out and hours worked.

When I was in management I always hired based upon quality of production.  I'd rather pay someone a bit more that can do a job well in 40-50 hours and be happy than someone willing to work longer hours for less pay who either doesn't get the same results or is miserable while doing it.  

Some companies like Costco and the Container Store get this philosophy and have great brands.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 1, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't think it's as cut and dry as salary paid out and hours worked.
> 
> When I was in management I always hired based upon quality of production.  I'd rather pay someone a bit more that can do a job well in 40-50 hours and be happy than someone willing to work longer hours for less pay who either doesn't get the same results or is miserable while doing it.
> 
> Some companies like Costco and the Container Store get this philosophy and have great brands.



I agree with you on this...some companies do get it. Many do not. In my experience as a sales manager my commissions and overrides always mysteriously decreased as my department's performance improved. The message I got was that I was too expensive for them to afford me. I don't work that way and it was one reason I dumped management and went back to outside sales.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 1, 2015)

dlague said:


> It is like the arbitrary $250K level related to taxes - total BS!




Yes totally agree.  I have an argument for that remind to tell the scenario at Zoomer Bar sometime.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

Happy being just an outside sales rep myself.   No desire to go back to management.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 1, 2015)

No overtime at my job. Bell rings at 9:30am & again at 4:00pm....:razz:


----------



## yeggous (Jul 1, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> No overtime at my job. Bell rings at 9:30am & again at 4:00pm....:razz:



Tell me about it. I am expected at work in time for a 10am meeting every day! Sometimes I'll even have to stay until 5pm.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 1, 2015)




----------



## Riverskier (Jul 2, 2015)

Complete bs. Not suggesting employers should actually be required to do this calculation, but as long as salaried employees are being paid at least what minimum wage would be including ot then there is not a problem. Not happy with hours or compensation then find a new job or career even. Not like this is going to automatically give people raises anyway. Salaries can be adjusted, benefits slashed, salaried workers could be switched to hourly at a lower rate, plenty of ways to "restructure". Who is to say most companies could even afford the potential raises associated with this even if they wanted to? And why would companies even offer sub 50000 salaried positions when it could only benefit the employee? Seems like there would be more hourly jobs at a lower hourly rate.


----------



## yeggous (Jul 2, 2015)

Riverskier said:


> Complete bs. Not suggesting employers should actually be required to do this calculation, but as long as salaried employees are being paid at least what minimum wage would be including ot then there is not a problem. Not happy with hours or compensation then find a new job or career even. Not like this is going to automatically give people raises anyway. Salaries can be adjusted, benefits slashed, salaried workers could be switched to hourly at a lower rate, plenty of ways to "restructure". Who is to say most companies could even afford the potential raises associated with this even if they wanted to? And why would companies even offer sub 50000 salaried positions when it could only benefit the employee? Seems like there would be more hourly jobs at a lower hourly rate.



This is not a new rule. It is merely updating the salary scales back to the original level based on inflation. I'm sure we can all agree that inflation adjustments are not a bad or political thing.

We'll see a whole range of responses. Higher salaries are possible. Conversion to hourly employees is possible. Making staff work more reasonable hours for the same pay is possible. It is highly unlikely that you'll see a degradation of benefits. These employees are already working ample hours to receive benefits.

Currently the job market is not weak. Unemployment rates have been slowly but steadily dropping for the past six years. Nationally unemployment is 5.7%. It's even better in central and northern New England. Massachusetts and Maine are 4.7%. New Hampshire is 3.8%. Boston is 3.7%. Vermont is 3.6%. Those are healthy numbers!

At my office we've been having problems recruiting staff, at least at the salaries we have been used to paying. As a result people are getting pay raises again. After getting years of 2-3% inflationary increases, I've received just over a 17% raise this year.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Currently the job market is not weak. Unemployment rates have been slowly but steadily dropping for the past six years. Nationally unemployment is 5.7%. It's even better in central and northern New England. Massachusetts and Maine are 4.7%. New Hampshire is 3.8%. Boston is 3.7%. Vermont is 3.6%. Those are healthy numbers!


These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 2, 2015)

Puck it said:


> These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.



Totally agree! Tell my buddy who just lost his $200,000 a year job that the market is not weak.

Being a greeter at Home Depot or flipping burgers is not a career!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

Puck it said:


> These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.



Yep another 432,000 people not in the labor force last month pushing the unemployment rate down another 2/10ths. That's nearly 94 million working age people not in the labor force. Happy days.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> This is not a new rule. It is merely updating the salary scales back to the original level based on inflation. I'm sure we can all agree that inflation adjustments are not a bad or political thing.


The last cap was set in 2004 at $23,660. You mean to tell  me inflation was over 100% the past 11 years.


----------



## dlague (Jul 2, 2015)

Puck it said:


> These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.



Damn straight!  In addition, the median Household income has not rebounded back to the 2007 highs which translates into little to no income growth - but ..... goverment is still growing at the city, state and national levels!


----------



## yeggous (Jul 2, 2015)

Puck it said:


> These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.



You're colored interpretation is the bogus part. Yes, there has been a decrease in the labor participation rate, but that is largely demographic driven. There are large more Baby Boomers aging out of the workforce than Millennials replacing them. Millenials are also going to college in larger numbers which reduces their time in the workforce. As the economy improves, we're also seeing an increase in birthrates which is removing women from the workforce. Factcheck.org, which is an excellent non-partisan resource, has a good summary of the issue.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> You're colored interpretation is the bogus part. Yes, there has been a decrease in the labor participation rate, but that is largely demographic driven. There are large more Baby Boomers aging out of the workforce than Millennials replacing them. Millenials are also going to college in larger numbers which reduces their time in the workforce. As the economy improves, we're also seeing an increase in birthrates which is removing women from the workforce. Factcheck.org, which is an excellent non-partisan resource, has a good summary of the issue.


I'll call BS.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/con...pation-rate-not-due-retirement-or-school-5431


----------



## yeggous (Jul 2, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> The last cap was set in 2004 at $23,660. You mean to tell  me inflation was over 100% the past 11 years.



Yes, the last time the cap was changed it was set disgustingly low. I am referring in reference to when it was first created. The first salary test for overtime exemption was added in 1975. At that time it was set to $250/week, which is $13,000 per year. Scaling for inflation since then it should be $57,462.17.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> You're colored interpretation is the bogus part. Yes, there has been a decrease in the labor participation rate, but that is largely demographic driven. There are large more Baby Boomers aging out of the workforce than Millennials replacing them. Millenials are also going to college in larger numbers which reduces their time in the workforce. As the economy improves, we're also seeing an increase in birthrates which is removing women from the workforce. Factcheck.org, which is an excellent non-partisan resource, has a good summary of the issue.



I do not believe anyone's comments have been partisan one way or another. Numbers can be manipulated to support any point of view. 

I'll support my view with the reality of what I see in my peer group. I'm 57 and none of my peers can afford to "age out of the workforce". The reality is most of us will NEVER be able to retire. Not a week goes by without another friend of mine having to scramble for a new job or to pay the bills. And very few women leave the workforce after giving birth, not for long anyway. That's either by choice or because of economic realities.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Yes, the last time the cap was changed it was set disgustingly low. I am referring in reference to when it was first created. The first salary test for overtime exemption was added in 1975. At that time it was set to $250/week, which is $13,000 per year. Scaling for inflation since then it should be $57,462.17.


What cost $23,660 in 2004 would cost $29,336 in 2014.


----------



## yeggous (Jul 2, 2015)

JimG. said:


> I do not believe anyone's comments have been partisan one way or another. Numbers can be manipulated to support any point of view.
> 
> I'll support my view with the reality of what I see in my peer group. I'm 57 and none of my peers can afford to "age out of the workforce". The reality is most of us will NEVER be able to retire. Not a week goes by without another friend of mine having to scramble for a new job or to pay the bills. And very few women leave the workforce after giving birth, not for long anyway. That's either by choice or because of economic realities.



Women don't often leave permanently, but they very commonly take maternity leave while the children are young. This will drive down the participation rate. On the young side, the more dramatic effect is the increasing education rate. You can clearly see that in the link that @Steamboat1 posted.

One factor that affects older workers is that their skills start to become outdated. We clearly see this in our company. Often (but not always) the software engineers are not up to date with contemporary technology. I don't expect you to age out of the workforce at age 57, but around age 65 people exit in large numbers. Given the demographics of our society, that will naturally result in a lower labor participation right as the age distribution is top-heavy.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2015)

Puck it said:


> These numbers are bogus.  They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.



I won't deny that SSI fraud is a real problem in need of addressing, but I think your anger is a bit misdirected.

That issue is a drop in the bucket compared to offshore individual and corporate tax dodging.  Take Burger King.  Through their inversion with Tim Horton's the IRS loses out on $400M over the next four years in corporate tax payments.  Additionally during the same period the IRS misses out on $820M in capital gains tax revenue from BK shareholders.

That's just one company.  Imagine the money involved with larger companies like Covidien who have gone through corporate similar inversions.

That's a crap load of hangnails.  

SSI fraud is a real issue, but should be near the bottom of the list for people/reasons to be angry with your personal tax bill.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

Maybe that's because the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2015)

And lowest individual rates.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 2, 2015)

We came in 55th place.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 2, 2015)

The bottom line here is that about 99.99% of the private and corporate world wants to pay as little tax as is legally allowed.  There is absolutely nothing to prevent any person or corporation from voluntarily paying more taxes than they are responsible for owing, yet almost nobody ever does.  It comes down to a simple question of do "you" (as either a private individual or as a corporation) feel that you are better able to handle and manage what you do with more of your own, earned, money or is the government better and handling and determining what to spend more of "your" own money on?

You want fair, then you need to completely eliminate the current tax system (both private and corporate) and either implement a simple flat tax, with essentially no deductions, or implement a consumption based value added tax, where if you're using something, you pay for it, and if your not using something than your not paying for someone else to use it


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2015)

The latter makes zero sense in a civilized society.  I lived in my town seven years without children; had no issues paying taxes towards the schools; voted for higher taxes for better schools before I was sure we were having children and staying in the community.  I did so because I think that's what's right for the community; not what's right for me personally.  The US can be such a me, me, me greedy society.  

At the end of the day, reading people bitch about taxes on a skiing message board amuses me.  I'm probably no where near the pay grade some of the members of this forum are, but I know that the fact that I've got a job, a mortgage, and a couple of cars that I can use to go skiing in the mountains 20+ times a year puts me in a better lifestyle than just about 95% of the people on this earth.   It's never enough for some though.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 2, 2015)

It must be summer!  :lol:


----------



## mbedle (Jul 2, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> It must be summer!  :lol:



LOL - So True!!

As far as deadheadskier's words, couldn't agree with you more. Just one point about the me, me, me society, each of us as travelers, skiers and generally outdoor kind of people, should try to realize how much we enjoy the benefits of our federal and local government.


----------



## Jully (Jul 2, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> What cost $23,660 in 2004 would cost $29,336 in 2014.



While that is true I think what Yeggous is trying to get at is that minimum wage in this country and what we consider the poverty line is significantly lower than what many people think it should be. This is why there are huge movements to increase minimum wage, especially when looking at minimum wages in other developed countries. 

Even though the jump from looking at 2004 to now appears massive, back when people first started trying to implement regulations like this, like Yeggous mentioned, they had a very different idea in mind of what minimum salaries should look like. Somewhere along the line that standard was drastically lowered hence why 13k only went up to 25k over forty years


----------



## JimG. (Jul 2, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Women don't often leave permanently, but they very commonly take maternity leave while the children are young. This will drive down the participation rate. On the young side, the more dramatic effect is the increasing education rate. You can clearly see that in the link that @Steamboat1 posted.
> 
> One factor that affects older workers is that their skills start to become outdated. We clearly see this in our company. Often (but not always) the software engineers are not up to date with contemporary technology. I don't expect you to age out of the workforce at age 57, but around age 65 people exit in large numbers. Given the demographics of our society, that will naturally result in a lower labor participation right as the age distribution is top-heavy.



I am fortunate...I can retire tomorrow if I want to. I don't work for others anymore. I work for myself as a consultant now. I have no debt and my mortgage will be paid off 4/1/17. When I am 59 1/2 on 9/12/17 I will retire and I will live off of investment income quite comfortably and leave a large inheritance to my wife and 3 boys. I pay my taxes and I do not complain. I am grateful and express that daily. 

I am very much the exception. You are terribly naïve if you think large numbers of 65 year olds exit the workforce...few can afford to now for many reasons. As for millennials like my 2 oldest sons, they drive down employment participation more by choice than because of education. They see the way corporate America abuses labor and want no part of that. My hope is that their generation brings corporations to their knees.

I have no horse in this race. Please consider that many who are averse to this new $50,000 threshold feel it will not help labor and will in fact be used by corporations to hurt labor instead.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 2, 2015)

Not even going to bother!


----------



## ss20 (Jul 2, 2015)

So... the ski resort managers are happy... what's this mean for my close-to-minimum-wage instructing job?  lol  Can I get a season pass?:smash:


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

mbedle said:


> LOL - So True!!
> 
> As far as deadheadskier's words, couldn't agree with you more. Just one point about the me, me, me society, each of us as travelers, skiers and generally outdoor kind of people, should try to realize how much we enjoy the benefits of our federal and local government.


We didn't build that.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 3, 2015)

Goverment #'s may be showing low amunt of people unemployed, but as someone who is looking for jobs, I can tell you that it is a different story. 
Minimum wage flipping burgers may count as a job, but it doesn't pay many bills.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 3, 2015)

ss20 said:


> So... the ski resort managers are happy... what's this mean for my close-to-minimum-wage instructing job?  lol  Can I get a season pass?:smash:



Can't say for sure, but don't expect a raise. They don't give you a free season pass for instructing at Thunder Ridge?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 3, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Goverment #'s may be showing low amunt of people unemployed, but as someone who is looking for jobs, I can tell you that it is a different story.
> Minimum wage flipping burgers may count as a job, but it doesn't pay many bills.



Fact is 70% of "new jobs" are in low pay foodservice and retail sectors. Like I said before, you can twist numbers to support any conclusions you want.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

JimG. said:


> Fact is 70% of "new jobs" are in low pay foodservice and retail sectors. Like I said before, you can twist numbers to support any conclusions you want.


Can't get a job at McDonalds or Walmart without papers


----------



## JimG. (Jul 3, 2015)

Jully said:


> While that is true I think what Yeggous is trying to get at is that minimum wage in this country and what we consider the poverty line is significantly lower than what many people think it should be. This is why there are huge movements to increase minimum wage, especially when looking at minimum wages in other developed countries.
> 
> Even though the jump from looking at 2004 to now appears massive, back when people first started trying to implement regulations like this, like Yeggous mentioned, they had a very different idea in mind of what minimum salaries should look like. Somewhere along the line that standard was drastically lowered hence why 13k only went up to 25k over forty years



I would agree here. You can bet corporate pressure was applied regarding that lowered standard.

Frankly, $50,000 doesn't go very far either unless you are single.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Can't get a job at McDonalds or Walmart without papers



Yes you can.  You may not be able to collect your tax refund at the end of the year, but by claiming enough deductions your not loosing out there either.  

One of my buddies owns a large nursery/ landscaping company.  He has guys come to him all the time with "papers" proving who they are.  They are legit papers, just maybe not for the person presenting them.  Not so easy to figure out who is legit, and who isn't though for that area of jobs.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> We didn't build that.



Not sure what you mean? I was speaking in reference to roads, low federal lease rates for land, snow plowing to keep highways clear, tax breaks on snow making equipment upgrades, etc. Since I work with a couple of state agencies daily and sit on a local planning committee, I take offense to people just randomly throwing the word "Government" around.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 3, 2015)

JimG. said:


> I am fortunate...I can retire tomorrow if I want to. I don't work for others anymore. I work for myself as a consultant now. I have no debt and my mortgage will be paid off 4/1/17. When I am 59 1/2 on 9/12/17 I will retire and I will live off of investment income quite comfortably and leave a large inheritance to my wife and 3 boys. I pay my taxes and I do not complain. I am grateful and express that daily.
> 
> I am very much the exception. You are terribly naïve if you think large numbers of 65 year olds exit the workforce...few can afford to now for many reasons. As for millennials like my 2 oldest sons, they drive down employment participation more by choice than because of education. They see the way corporate America abuses labor and want no part of that. My hope is that their generation brings corporations to their knees.
> 
> I have no horse in this race. Please consider that many who are averse to this new $50,000 threshold feel it will not help labor and will in fact be used by corporations to hurt labor instead.



Jim - you can't say things like "live of investment income quite comfortably" and "My hope is that their generation brings corporations to their knees." You can kiss the first part goodbye if the second part ever happens!!! And even if your investments are not based in any corporate stocks, mine are, so please leave big corporations alone. They are making me a pretty nice retirement pile now and I 'm going to need that pile in a couple of years.


----------



## marcski (Jul 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Yep another 432,000 people not in the labor force last month pushing the unemployment rate down another 2/10ths. That's nearly 94 million working age people not in the labor force. Happy days.


Where is this number from?  It seems quite off and total bs.  There are only about 350 mil total population in the US.  And you are saying 94 million of the working age population that want to work are unemployed?  Show me a reliable source for thoae numbers!


----------



## yeggous (Jul 3, 2015)

marcski said:


> Where is this number from?  It seems quite off and total bs.  There are only about 350 mil total population in the US.  And you are saying 94 million of the working age population that want to work are unemployed?  Show me a reliable source for thoae numbers!



That number he is cherry picking is the number of people age 16 or older who are not working. It does not account for those who are students, retired, disabled, home makers, incarcerated, or not legally authorized to work, etc. that is a number that is commonly swung around by right wing blogs. I should know as I used to work for one.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Puck it (Jul 3, 2015)

Anybody got that number truck driving school? I think we may need it!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

marcski said:


> Where is this number from?  It seems quite off and total bs.  There are only about 350 mil total population in the US.  And you are saying 94 million of the working age population that want to work are unemployed?  Show me a reliable source for thoae numbers!


Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics a reliable enough source for you?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

Oh & my other number saying the number of people not in the labor force increased by 432,0000 last month was wrong. The number of people not in the labor force increased by 640,000 last month.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 3, 2015)

Right, and that number includes millions of people like yourself.  Retirees who are voluntarily not working.   Hence it is a misleading and bogus talking point by the Rush/Steaboats of the world that any economist worth his calculator wouldn't use when discussing unemployment.

As yeggous said, you need to subtract students, retirees, homemakers and the disabled to come up with a number that's relevant.

Why don't you do that, then get back to us with a number that actually matters.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Yep nearly 30% of the population age 16 & older not working is an irrelevant number. Did Rachel tell you that?

By the way the number of people age 65 & over still in the labor force has been increasing, not decreasing over the past decade. By over 100% actually.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 3, 2015)

Again, please tell the group what students, retirees, homemakers and the disabled have to do with unemployment.


----------



## Jully (Jul 3, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Jim - you can't say things like "live of investment income quite comfortably" and "My hope is that their generation brings corporations to their knees." You can kiss the first part goodbye if the second part ever happens!!! And even if your investments are not based in any corporate stocks, mine are, so please leave big corporations alone. They are making me a pretty nice retirement pile now and I 'm going to need that pile in a couple of years.



I don't think it's a horrible thing to use the system in place while at the same time wish that the system wasn't there. Hoping for wide spread corporate change while still investing in the best stocks and whatnot I feel is pretty common. Furthermore I don't think the stock market is going to be where corporate change is going to come from.


----------



## Jully (Jul 3, 2015)

JimG. said:


> Fact is 70% of "new jobs" are in low pay foodservice and retail sectors. Like I said before, you can twist numbers to support any conclusions you want.



Honestly this is why I think we need to start somewhere with the $50,000 threshold and other improvements to minimum wage type regulations. With all the new jobs that are being created, we have you do something to try and turn those into something a little more livable.

Manufacturing isn't coming back to this country. While we have health laws and OSHA, the factories here just don't make enough money compared to overseas. I think everyone on here agrees that corporations are not fun to work for and they are abusive in at least some manner to labor, and so look at how workers are treated in Asian and Mexican factories. It's appalling. The reason those factories are over there is not just a tax argument, it's a labor argument. 

There's a lack of middle income, livable jobs in the US right now. I think the way to start bridging that gap is by starting at the bottom with what is already there instead of trying to create a new job sector out of thin air. I'll agree that the wording is a little weird and it very well might be abused by companies, but it's a start, and it's much easier to fix something than create an entirely new piece of regulation. You have to start the fight somewhere


----------



## Puck it (Jul 3, 2015)

And what about the student loan bubble that is going to burst when students get out and get the right paying jobs.


----------



## dlague (Jul 3, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Yes you can.  You may not be able to collect your tax refund at the end of the year, but by claiming enough deductions your not loosing out there either.
> 
> One of my buddies owns a large nursery/ landscaping company.  He has guys come to him all the time with "papers" proving who they are.  They are legit papers, just maybe not for the person presenting them.  Not so easy to figure out who is legit, and who isn't though for that area of jobs.



Jobs at McDonald's have to pay little if any taxes unless it is a second job and then probably still in the clear.  With the exception of SS  taxes.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Again, please tell the group what students, retirees, homemakers and the disabled have to do with unemployment.


Nothing, they're not counted in the labor force therefore not counted as unemployed. If we can get the labor force participation rate down to zero the unemployment rate will be zero also. No one will be working though. A liberal panacea. Until of course we run out of other peoples money. Maybe we can tax the Greeks.

94 million not working & not even counted as unemployed. Guess you're good with that.

Oh by the way I'm counted as a participant. May be retired from Wall St. but still drawing probably a better salary than you. Pay my federal, state & local taxes too, even SS. Don't even have to consult.

Did you know that just over 17% of the disabled work? Don't know about you but I worked while a student.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Jully said:


> Honestly this is why I think we need to start somewhere with the $50,000 threshold and other improvements to minimum wage type regulations. With all the new jobs that are being created, we have you do something to try and turn those into something a little more livable.
> 
> Manufacturing isn't coming back to this country. While we have health laws and OSHA, the factories here just don't make enough money compared to overseas. I think everyone on here agrees that corporations are not fun to work for and they are abusive in at least some manner to labor, and so look at how workers are treated in Asian and Mexican factories. It's appalling. The reason those factories are over there is not just a tax argument, it's a labor argument.
> 
> There's a lack of middle income, livable jobs in the US right now. I think the way to start bridging that gap is by starting at the bottom with what is already there instead of trying to create a new job sector out of thin air. I'll agree that the wording is a little weird and it very well might be abused by companies, but it's a start, and it's much easier to fix something than create an entirely new piece of regulation. You have to start the fight somewhere


Yeah even panhandlers are entitled to more.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 3, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Nothing, they're not counted in the labor force therefore not counted as unemployed. .



Thank you for admitting the 94M figure you were throwing around is bogus regarding the unemployment number.

Good on you for stepping back from the Sean Hannity talking point you were trying to push.

And BTW, nobody cares how much money you still make in retirement.  But if it makes you feel better to brag about yourself, go for it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 4, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Thank you for admitting the 94M figure you were throwing around is bogus regarding the unemployment number.


Not bogus that's a real number, the lower the participation rate goes the lower the unemployment rate goes.

You're kinda slow aren't you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 4, 2015)

But you want your cake and eat it too talking about more people over the age of 65 working than ever before.........

Such a confused old man you are


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 4, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> But you want your cake and eat it too talking about more people over the age of 65 working than ever before.........
> 
> Such a confused old man you are


Yep slow.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 4, 2015)

dlague said:


> Jobs at McDonald's have to pay little if any taxes unless it is a second job and then probably still in the clear.  With the exception of SS  taxes.



Static numbers of the working poor are insignificant.  The_ percentage_ of their income is what is significant in the mess the Feds have made of the Income Tax.  Forbes' Flat Tax would right a lot of wrongs and would, at least, create more clarity where the deficit is funded from....and there should be better accounting in the financial, construction and defense industry with much more aggressive prison time for financial cheats....imho, anyone expecting taxation fairness..as well as skills-retooling...based on career skills/intelligence, not the bank account...with Obama(an AIG dude) is dreaming...  I would've thought he'd have gotten the idea once he became the top guy for healthcare website development.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jul 4, 2015)

(Yawn)

Is it winter yet?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 4, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Jim - you can't say things like "live of investment income quite comfortably" and "My hope is that their generation brings corporations to their knees." You can kiss the first part goodbye if the second part ever happens!!! And even if your investments are not based in any corporate stocks, mine are, so please leave big corporations alone. They are making me a pretty nice retirement pile now and I 'm going to need that pile in a couple of years.



You're right...this topic makes me crazy especially now that my oldest son is on coop from RIT. I see the confusion in his face regarding a lot of workplace issues. It's hard for me to be positive discussing it.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 4, 2015)

Please let's try not to kill the discussion by going politically nuclear. Easier said than done I know.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 4, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> And BTW, nobody cares how much money you still make in retirement.  But if it makes you feel better to brag about yourself, go for it.


Didn't think you or anyone else would care. Doesn't affect me in the least so I certainly don't. Just trying to clear up your earlier assertion that I was not counted in the labor force. Even my 87 year old father is still in the labor force, not that he needs to be. We need more people like him.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 5, 2015)

People who clearly dont know the first thing about Economics & Finance, should never attempt to speak intelligently about Economics & Finance.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2015)

And people who currently or used to work in the financial services industry shouldn't be throwing around that 94M figure when discussing unemployment.  My retired 89 year old grandmother playing cribbage in a nursing home has nothing to do with the unemployment number.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 5, 2015)

But 28.9 million people ages 25-54 not working does. Nearly 1 in 4 in that age group.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2015)

Thank you for bringing relevant data to the conversation.


----------



## Edd (Jul 5, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> But 28.9 million people ages 25-54 not working does. Nearly 1 in 4 in that age group.



Do you have a link for that number?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 5, 2015)

Edd said:


> Do you have a link for that number?


You can go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Congressional Budget Office sites to find it.


----------



## Edd (Jul 5, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> You can go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Congressional Budget Office sites to find it.



I've had a few drinks, but can't seem to find it. Pretty specific number. Honestly curious, because a number like that gets my attention.


----------



## Jully (Jul 5, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> People who clearly dont know the first thing about Economics & Finance, should never attempt to speak intelligently about Economics & Finance.



Economics & Finance


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 5, 2015)

Edd said:


> I've had a few drinks, but can't seem to find it. Pretty specific number. Honestly curious, because a number like that gets my attention.


Wait till you sober up in the morning & try again.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 5, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> People who clearly dont know the first thing about Economics & Finance, should never attempt to speak intelligently about Economics & Finance.


Guess that leaves you out.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> And people who currently or used to work in the financial services industry shouldn't be throwing around that 94M figure when discussing unemployment


Why not? If the same percentage of people were still in the labor force as at the beginning of our last recession the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. And it ain't because of your grandmother.


----------



## Edd (Jul 5, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Wait till you sober up in the morning & try again.



Your credibility: are you concerned about it? Were you this loose with numbers when you worked on Wall Street?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Why not? If the same percentage of people were still in the labor force as at the beginning of our last recession the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. And it ain't because of your grandmother.



Yup, you're correct.  10 years ago when the unemployment number was in the 5s, that was the real number.   

But now that it's in the 5s today, the number is fake because you don't like who's in office.

What else you want to tell us?  The Dow today at 17,700 also isn't real?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Guess that leaves you out.



You do realize BG is pretty much a carbon copy of yourself in his socio-economic views.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jul 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You do realize BG is pretty much a carbon copy of yourself in his socio-economic views.



He profile is non existent at
Platty on mid winter day though didn't expect that glad to finally meet him this past winter ( I smoked resin from Glass pipe And drank wed red lol wine few drinks already don't go Yonkers fmbe patient non


----------



## ss20 (Jul 5, 2015)

Looks like you all had a nice 4th of July weekend...


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 5, 2015)

ScottySkis said:


> He profile is non existent at
> Platty on mid winter day though didn't expect that glad to finally meet him this past winter ( I smoked resin from Glass pipe And drank wed red lol wine few drinks already don't go Yonkers fmbe patient non



Dlague? translation pls


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

Edd said:


> Your credibility: are you concerned about it? Were you this loose with numbers when you worked on Wall Street?


Not my fault you can't find the numbers. Even told you where to find them. Do I have to do everything for you? Found them pretty easily myself.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Yup, you're correct.  10 years ago when the unemployment number was in the 5s, that was the real number.
> 
> But now that it's in the 5s today, the number is fake because you don't like who's in office.
> 
> What else you want to tell us?  The Dow today at 17,700 also isn't real?


You are pretty slow aren't  you?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You do realize BG is pretty much a carbon copy of yourself in his socio-economic views.


Good on him.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

ScottySkis said:


> He profile is non existent at
> Platty on mid winter day though didn't expect that glad to finally meet him this past winter ( I smoked resin from Glass pipe And drank wed red lol wine few drinks already don't go Yonkers fmbe patient non





Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Dlague? translation pls


Haven't a clue but I think he met BG at Platty, smoked some resin & had a few wines.. I could be wrong though. No idea what Yonkers had to do with it.

Love ya Scotty.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jul 6, 2015)

Lol! My Scotty translator is down too... I can't figure out that last part   :lol:


----------



## SkiFanE (Jul 6, 2015)

Anyone who thinks the long term health of this country is going in the right direction is either "in" like Flynn with corporations or just clueless. Manufacturing mass exodus from this country is going to create a massive divide of have/have nots.  We're just in the infancy stage of the changes, in my opinion. The majority of non-professional jobs nowadays are service jobs - and when you just "serve" people (ie try to take the hard earned cash out of their fists) - you're going to make crap $. People like to pay as little as they can for services. Trickle down is a joke.  As college becomes hard to afford - harder to get out of the rut. Sure I know there are plumbers, electricians and a few other trades. But heck - how many car mechanics exist anymore?  Cheaper to toss another cheap part made with cheap labor jnto a car than to actually repair it. 

No- I don't have a finance or economics degree - guess back in "my day" it wasn't a qualification for cocktail or Internet chit chat - so go easy on me.  I am venturing on thin ice - and don't want to drown before me next ski season. 

BTW - being a dummy I don't know the terms to describe an economy such as Colombia's. But since I know the country quite well - they are the perfect image of a service based economy.  Little manufacturing. You can hire a maid full time to cook and clean for you for $100/week, or less. You pay nothing for car service. With no minimum wage - offer $1/hr for work - and chances are some poor souls living in a dirt shack will do it for you.  Police make shit $ too - so bribe them $10 and chances are they'll take care of whatever police work you need done. It's great to have maids and cooks and gardeners to maintain your lifestyle. But it's a major mess of a country due to such a huge population of poor.  And with the rich holding all the cards - I don't see it changing any time soon - it's sad.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 6, 2015)

The key is the definition of rich.  It is not not some arbitrary number. Not needing to go to work is my idea of rich.


----------



## Edd (Jul 6, 2015)

Puck it said:


> The key is the definition of rich.  It is not not some arbitrary number. Not needing to go to work is my idea of rich.



I agree with the thing about work. I think we can pick a number, though. If you're making 500K/year, and you can't live within your means and retire early, well, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 6, 2015)

Edd said:


> I agree with the thing about work. I think we can pick a number, though. If you're making 500K/year, and you can't live within your means and retire early, well, you're doing it wrong.


$250K is not rich like some think.  That is two professionals(husband and wife) working in a tech job for 10+ years with two kids in school and not getting any aid to pay for them.  Nice house and two decent cars.  And going to work everyday.  That is what some people say is rich.  I agree with the $500K to some extent.  People making that much money and are getting W2' for salaries do not have the options of hiding income like the filthy rich.


----------



## Edd (Jul 6, 2015)

Puck it said:


> $250K is not rich like some think.  That is two professionals(husband and wife) working in a tech job for 10+ years with two kids in school and not getting any aid to pay for them.  Nice house and two decent cars.  And going to work everyday.  That is what some people say is rich.  I agree with the $500K to some extent.  People making that much money and are getting W2' for salaries do not have the options of hiding income like the filthy rich.



If the couple in this example gets a modest house, has one kid instead of two, and so forth, they can live relatively worry free. 

My view is that the expectations of what people deserve is out to lunch these days. 40 years ago, the nuclear family with the house and the cars was far more achievable. Now it isn't. It's simply the new reality. 

How to respond to that? Live totally and completely within your means. Some know how to do that. Way too many, some wealthy, don't.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

Edd said:


> Live totally and completely within your means. Some know how to do that. Way too many, some wealthy, don't.


Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 6, 2015)

Edd said:


> If the couple in this example gets a modest house, has one kid instead of two, and so forth, they can live relatively worry free.
> 
> My view is that the expectations of what people deserve is out to lunch these days. 40 years ago, the nuclear family with the house and the cars was far more achievable. Now it isn't. It's simply the new reality.
> 
> How to respond to that? Live totally and completely within your means. Some know how to do that. Way too many, some wealthy, don't.


Modest house where the jobs are 300k. Add college, car payments. Oh and the taxes. Not much left.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 6, 2015)

Puck it said:


> $250K is not rich like some think.  That is two professionals(husband and wife) working in a tech job for 10+ years with two kids in school and not getting any aid to pay for them.  Nice house and two decent cars.  And going to work everyday.  That is what some people say is rich.  I agree with the $500K to some extent.  People making that much money and are getting W2' for salaries do not have the options of hiding income like the filthy rich.



It's not Donald Trump money obviously, but only 1 in every 50 American families bring in $250K a year.  

If it's such a struggle to live on that kind of income, imagine what's it's like for the average family.  I can promise you, every single average working family would trade the tax benefits and tuition help they receive to earn $250K a year instead.

Not suggesting it's wrong to want more, but I don't ever hear any of my friends in that income bracket complain about money.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 6, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> It's not Donald Trump money obviously, but only 1 in every 50 American families bring in $250K a year.
> 
> If it's such a struggle to live on that kind of income, imagine what's it's like for the average family.  I can promise you, every single average working family would trade the tax benefits and tuition help they receive to earn $250K a year instead.
> 
> Not suggesting it's wrong to want more, but I don't ever hear any of my friends in that income bracket complain about money.



I got agree with this. I find it hard to believe that if you are bringing in 250K a year and having a hard time getting by, you might want to rethink your priorities.


----------



## freeski (Jul 6, 2015)

$250K is rich no matter how you slice it. If you've over spend on homes, cars, vacations you can chew it up though. The people who make out are people who own there own businesses. I know of people who have "customers" stay at expensive 2nd homes to create write offs.The car dealers seem to be the worst. I know a guy who had 3 Mercedes and wife drove a Hummer and used dealer plates to avoid local taxes. They don't even have a car dealership. Also, write off meals as business expenses, etc...


----------



## Edd (Jul 6, 2015)

freeski said:


> $250K is rich no matter how you slice it. If you've over spend on homes, cars, vacations you can chew it up though. The people who make out are people who own there own businesses. I know of people who have "customers" stay at expensive 2nd homes to create write offs.The car dealers seem to be the worst. I know a guy who had 3 Mercedes and wife drove a Hummer and used dealer plates to avoid local taxes. They don't even have a car dealership. Also, write off meals as business expenses, etc...



Those people sound gross.


----------



## cdskier (Jul 6, 2015)

Edd said:


> Those people sound gross.



Just take a look at some of the public tax records one day. Near Sugarbush there are several rather expensive homes/condos owned by "holding" companies in the Bahamas.  Then you have other condos and homes owned by a variety of LLCs (some could be legitimate for different reasons, but I'd bet others are setup that way for tax purposes, write-offs, etc).


----------



## dlague (Jul 6, 2015)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Dlague? translation pls



Can't help you on that one!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

Yeah lets tax the shit out of those rich bastards even though they already pay the lions share of taxes in this country. It's only fair.

[h=1]Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax[/h][h=2]And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam.[/h]


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 6, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I got agree with this. I find it hard to believe that if you are bringing in 250K a year and having a hard time getting by, you might want to rethink your priorities.



I think it depends where you live, 250K goes alot further outside the Metropolitan areas that living down town.
As far as self employed people getting tax breaks, they bust you up front with a "Self employment tax".
I'm sure there's abusers like anywhere else.....which leads me to another gripe. 
I've done a lot of work in subsidized housing projects, 20% of those people are working the system.
One tennant tells me " Hurry up and finish your job I'm going to the batting cages , big screen TV and freakin Escalade
....Ha Ha ...his thermostat somehow got stuck on 60f.


----------



## dlague (Jul 6, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I got agree with this. I find it hard to believe that if you are bringing in 250K a year and having a hard time getting by, you might want to rethink your priorities.



250K translates to about 50k in taxes.  Earning higher incomes generally means higher expenses.  250K is not rich.  And should not be treated that way.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 6, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> *Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax*


Yet only earn 51% of income.

To be in the top 20% you need to earn $112,000 per year.

Lets tax those rich bastards more.


----------



## Jully (Jul 6, 2015)

I mean the top fifth of people paying 4/5s of taxes isn't a total travesty in my opinion. We have a gradient income tax. I'd like to see what percentage of the 80-90% earners pay of that income tax compared to the top 10% percent. There are people with $3 million salaries that should translate to more income tax than someone making $30,000 or 1% of that.

This massive income tax isn't hurting the top earners that much because since 1979 the top 20% of earners in the country have seen post income tax income rise by greater percentages than the remaining 80% with the top 1% of those earners seeing a 200% growth in income after they paid their taxes compared to the 20 to 80% earners seeing a 40% rise in income.

Income inequality in this country is rising despite all the uncle Sam benefits and high income tax on the top earners so I don't feel too bad about that tax statistic. If the top earners were seeing equal income rises to the rest of the country or were seeing less growth, then we'd have a discussion.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 7, 2015)

yeah burger flippers deserve more. Don't have to risk a thing.

Ever hear of risk & reward?


----------



## Jully (Jul 7, 2015)

It's a lot more complicated than that and you understand that. Give me a real reason and we can have a discussion, because there are real reasons out there. The majority of the poor and lower middle class in this country do not flip burgers. There are significant socioeconomic factors holding millions in their places. I'm all for fixing that through education, not handouts, but I'm for fixing it. I don't want to not tax the wealthy so that they can afford luxurious vacations and million dollar vacation homes. 

You got help getting where you are today, and if you didn't you're a part of a super minority. Ever hear of giving back?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Haven't a clue but I think he met BG at Platty, smoked some resin & had a few wines.. I could be wrong though. No idea what Yonkers had to do with it.
> 
> Love ya Scotty.



translation: don't try to score MJ in Yonkers it's dangerous and you might get ripped off.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Not needing to go to work is my idea of rich.



Holy crap!

Something I agree with you about.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 7, 2015)

Not all rich people took a risk.  


.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Not all rich people took a risk.
> 
> 
> .



+1

And "burger flipper" isn't a profession that should be belittled either.   That sort of white collar arrogance doesn't exist in much of the developed world outside of the US.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I got agree with this. I find it hard to believe that if you are bringing in 250K a year and having a hard time getting by, you might want to rethink your priorities.


  One always spends to the level of their income.  Why not.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2015)

My family benefited from the system since my father was a disabled vet.  The family received VA benefits and my mother did not work.  We lived in upstate NY and lived in subsidized housing until I was 5.  All four of us went to college on VA benefits without this we would never have gone.  All four of us have degrees and have/had great jobs.  So we are products of the system.  My father and mother pushed us to do better.  So if someone has the drive and the means then they can do anything in this country.  I don't want to hear the crying that I can't get a well paying job.  Get off the fuckin' couch and stop playing xBox.  Do something about!!!!!!   I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and my wife and I do, I don't want to pay for free loaders that abuse my hard earned money.


----------



## Jully (Jul 7, 2015)

Puck it said:


> My family benefited from the system since my father was a disabled vet.  The family received VA benefits and my mother did not work.  We lived in upstate NY and lived in subsidized housing until I was 5.  All four of us went to college on VA benefits without this we would never have gone.  All four of us have degrees and have/had great jobs.  So we are products of the system.  My father and mother pushed us to do better.  So if someone has the drive and the means then they can do anything in this country.  I don't want to hear the crying that I can't get a well paying job.  Get off the fuckin' couch and stop playing xBox.  Do something about!!!!!!   I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and my wife and I do, I don't want to pay for free loaders that abuse my hard earned money.



Exactly, and there are, unfortunately, a large number of free loaders in the system. I think drug testing should be mandatory for those receiving benefits for instance. There's a lot that can be done to improve the system that's in place, but I don't think that the current system is fundamentally unfair to the wealthy or wealthier percentage of wage earners in the country.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 7, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Not all rich people took a risk.
> 
> 
> .





deadheadskier said:


> +1
> 
> And "burger flipper" isn't a profession that should be belittled either.   That sort of white collar arrogance doesn't exist in much of the developed world outside of the US.



True,


But most did!  I'm guessing that there are far more "rich" people who became "rich" because of risks they took than "rich" people who got that way via things such being lucky enough to have been born to parents, or into a family who set up some cushy trust funds for them to pass their $$ too.....  Heck, people get struck by lightning regularly, but it's not a very large number of people, even if they almost always end up as the topic of a prominently reported news story


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2015)

Puck it said:


> My family benefited from the system since my father was a disabled vet.  The family received VA benefits and my mother did not work.  We lived in upstate NY and lived in subsidized housing until I was 5.  All four of us went to college on VA benefits without this we would never have gone.  All four of us have degrees and have/had great jobs.  So we are products of the system.  My father and mother pushed us to do better.  So if someone has the drive and the means then they can do anything in this country.  I don't want to hear the crying that I can't get a well paying job.  Get off the fuckin' couch and stop playing xBox.  Do something about!!!!!!   I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and my wife and I do, I don't want to pay for free loaders that abuse my hard earned money.



It would be a lot easier for many to get a leg up with training and education if the federal government didn't charge interest rates that are 7X the rate they charge banks.  

That won't help the uninitiated, but there are plenty of people out there who have simply been priced out of the system.  

I went back to school at 36 years old to reinvent myself and change careers.  I was in school or clinical internships all day and worked in the evening at a restaurant 30+ hours a week.  It was a 70 hour a week commitment for two years. Even with that commitment, I couldn't have done it without my wife having a decent paying job. 

I was/am lucky.  Many are not.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> It would be a lot easier for many to get a leg up with training and education if the federal government didn't charge interest rates that are 7X the rate they charge banks.
> 
> That won't help the uninitiated, but there are plenty of people out there who have simply been priced out of the system.
> 
> ...


  You did it.  People need to stop the poor pitiful me crap.  Pick yourself and do something about it.  Stop expecting others to pay for your meager lifestyle and make something of yourself.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 7, 2015)

The other BIG factor, with many that I see (and this includes students going to school to become one of my future professional colleagues too for sure), is that many people seem to have this unrealistic view, that the second they get such and such a job, or enter such and such a profession, that they should immediately be able to have the exact same lifestyle that someone who has been in that line of work, and is viewed as "successful" has. Very often that same "successful" person DIDN'T acquire all they currently have immediately upon getting that job, but slowly, over years to even decades, with continued work and effort to improve themselves, acquired some of what they have now, that others look upon with envy as a sign of "success" - the "instant gratification" factor is a BIG issue for many people


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2015)

No argument here on that


----------



## farlep99 (Jul 7, 2015)

drjeff said:


> The other BIG factor, with many that I see (and this includes students going to school to become one of my future professional colleagues too for sure), is that many people seem to have this unrealistic view, that the second they get such and such a job, or enter such and such a profession, that they should immediately be able to have the exact same lifestyle that someone who has been in that line of work, and is viewed as "successful" has. Very often that same "successful" person DIDN'T acquire all they currently have immediately upon getting that job, but slowly, over years to even decades, with continued work and effort to improve themselves, acquired some of what they have now, that others look upon with envy as a sign of "success" - the "instant gratification" factor is a BIG issue for many people



It's called paying dues & it needs to be done no matter what industry/vocation you're in.  Too many today are either unable or unwilling to do it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 7, 2015)

One problem that is going to get worse over the years is the inability of people to retire.  The day of the defined benefit pension is gone for all but school teachers and government workers.  Most people do not have nearly enough in retirement savings, which means that they are going to stay in the workforce longer.  This means that positions will not open up as often as they used to for younger people to move up the career ladder.

The bottom line is this: The baby boomer generation is the first generation in a LONG time to leave this country in worse shape than they found it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 7, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> *Yup, you're correct.  10 years ago when the unemployment number was in the 5s, that was the real number.    But now that it's in the 5s today, the number is fake because you don't like who's in office.*



He is correct.

And 10 years ago the specific unemployment number he's referring to was BS too.   The unemployment number has been BS for precisely 21 years now.  

This is the reason why, as soon as the "headline number" which is the number that gets parroted on television, is released, professionals pour through the BLS news release to parce out the real data from the BS.




Edd said:


> *My view is that the expectations of what people deserve is out to lunch these days. *



I think I agree with you if what you're saying is that 40 years ago if you owned a house and 2 cars and were able to take a family vacation to the shore once a year, you thought you "had it good".  Wheras nowadays unless you own a McMansion and a summer home, 3 or 4 cars, and can take an annual trip to Paris or Australia etc..., the perception among many is they haven't succeeded.  Call it "keeping up with the Jones'" syndrome or what have you, but my belief is people used to be far easier to please. 



Jully said:


> *You got help getting where you are today*, and if you didn't you're a part of a super minority. Ever hear of giving back?



 Who provided the "help" you speak of?  Beyond family, or perhaps teachers if you take a more self-righteous view.  Define help.



Puck it said:


> *My father and mother pushed us to do better.  So if someone has the drive and the means then they can do anything in this country.  I don't want to hear the crying that I can't get a well paying job.*  Get off the fuckin' couch and stop playing xBox.  Do something about!!!!!!*   I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and my wife and I do, I don't want to pay for free loaders that abuse my hard earned money.*



That's pretty much it right there.  But if everyone thought as you did, what would the politicians do to get votes?   You dont sound like someone who's going to beg at their feet for scraps.


----------



## Jully (Jul 7, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Who provided the "help" you speak of?  Beyond family, or perhaps teachers if you take a more self-righteous view.  Define help.



What I meant by help was that all of us here have utilized what our federal government either helps pay for, or pays for entirely with its own money. Federal income tax is put into a general tax fund that gets used by congress for a variety of needs, like paying interest on our national debt. 

More specifically, I'm sure every one of us here have driven on an interstate... your income tax helps pays for that. I'd qualify that as accepting help from tax dollars. You, or anyone older than you in your direct family used a federally funded or assisted hospital? Probably. Used Google for school or work or anything? Google started as project funded partially through NSF and probably wouldn't gotten going without it. Every gotten a CT scan and had a kidney stone, cancer, or some other deadly health threat diagnosed? CT scans also came out of federal funding. Went to public school? Or did you parents go to public school? Happy with the protection you feel living in the US and our military? We all ski on federal lands that would most likely look a lot different if federal tax revenue had not been spent to protect those lands. Taxes are used to pay for a lot of things as everyone knows.

As Steamboat1 so delightfully pointed out, 4/5s of the income tax comes from the top 20% of earners. So, without 4/5s paying that much, things like our national debt interest, highways, schools, hospitals, NSF funding for medical and other important scientific projects that no one else will fund, etc will not have nearly as much money. 

Anyone in the top 20% of earners might not have ever taken a food stamp, but you benefited from the federal government and still benefit from your income tax payments in ways many people don't realize. Part of living in the United States (because our progressive income tax has been around for awhile now) is subscribing to the idea that you give more if you have more. Yes we're capitalist, but the majority of our government's programs have been very popular for the extent of their lifetimes. 

PLUS, as I said earlier, post income tax deductions, the top 20% of earners have seen bigger rises in income for over three decades now than any other group of earners in this country! Capitalism is still alive and well! If you are smarter, luckier, work harder, WHATEVER reason floats your boat for why you are successful, you still very much get to see the benefits of that success in a tremendous way! So paying that much tax clearly isn't hurting us. Why do you want to take away money from underfunded programs that help millions of people in this country when you're doing just fine yourself? There are other countries you can move to that don't have the same government style. No one is MAKING you live here and pay taxes


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 7, 2015)

Jully said:


> What I meant by help was that a*ll of us here have utilized what our federal government* either helps pay for, or *pays for entirely with its own money. *Federal income tax is put into a general tax fund that gets used by congress for a variety of needs, like paying interest on our national debt.



Your logic is badly and perversely flawed from the very first sentence.

The Federal Government has NO money of_ its'_ own.  

The Federal Government only has what it "takes", directly from its' hard-working citizens, and it "takes" far too much.

Only THEN, after the government "takes", can the Federal Government spend, of which it does so much of, that we're now in over $18 TRILLION dollars of debt, and it is highly doubtful that it can be repaid.  The debt servicing will only be paid by further "taking" even more money from American citizens.   

*Just how much money is $18 TRILLION dollars some may ask? *

 If literally EVERY.........digest that for a moment.........US taxpayer, put $150,000 in a hat, you still wouldnt quite be able to pay it off.  This nation is heading towards a positively massive economic crisis which will have global ramifications. 

 But hey, I do enjoy that Eisenhower highway system you mentioned, so I guess I've been "helped" on my trips to Florida.


----------



## Edd (Jul 7, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> I think I agree with you if what you're saying is that 40 years ago if you owned a house and 2 cars and were able to take a family vacation to the shore once a year, you thought you "had it good".  Wheras nowadays unless you own a McMansion and a summer home, 3 or 4 cars, and can take an annual trip to Paris or Australia etc..., the perception among many is they haven't succeeded.  Call it "keeping up with the Jones'" syndrome or what have you, but my belief is people used to be far easier to please.



Not quite what I meant. I'm pointing out that the same basic nuclear family lifestyle is far more expensive to achieve these days. Despite that being the case, many people expect to have it even though it's much more elusive. The McMansion thing is the next level of crazy. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't believe what folks are paying for real estate. It's certainly more of a lifestyle choice vs. an investment decision. I'm speaking generally, here, as there are always exceptions.


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Your logic is badly and perversely flawed from the very first sentence.
> 
> The Federal Government has NO money of_ its'_ own.
> 
> ...



You do realize the debt doubled under our friend George Bush right? The last time the national debt decreased as a percentage of our national GDP was under Clinton. Then we went to war with Iraq, Afghanistan, and cut taxes to the wealthy and BOOM $10 trillion of debt. Think that should have happened? 

I don't want to get into a debt discussion. I don't think it should be there either, but how would you propose paying it down if we have to lower taxes because we're taking too much money from hard working bankers on wall street instead of letting them buy land from here to Chicago to build private fiber optic cables?

Yes a lot of our debt comes from social security, but we also spend an ENORMOUS amount on our military. Do you want to completely axe both?

We have programs in place that millions rely on in this country. You'll never be able to eliminate those programs, at least in the next few decades.

This is the reality of our country today. As I said, if you don't like it, leave. I'm willing to pay more to try and get us back on track.

I never said anything about the federal government OWNING money. Where did you get that from? I said the federal government has a general income tax pool
 I talked about taxes the whole time. Taxes are real, hate to break it to you.

All you did was complain and be inflammatory. Come back again with some facts and something substantive about what you would do differently and we can talk.

What do you want to do if you don't want to "take" any more money from hardworking American citizens of any tax bracket? Shut down the government? That worked out real well.

Our country is in trouble, and its as much one party's fault as the other and blame isn't going to get us anywhere. I want to know what you want try DO about it. Not listen to you nit pick my language on the government's supposed possession of money. Use your little financial brain and let's TALK not condescend, come on, you can do it, I believe.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> There are other countries you can move to that don't have the same government style. No one is MAKING you live here and pay taxes



This is a dangerous sentiment to promote. Do you realize that the number of people who are renouncing US citizenship has been increasing steadily and, recently, exponentially? Are you aware that most of these individuals do so to avoid US taxes (like many US corporations) and that many have fundamental disagreements with government policies? Are you aware most are high income earners?

Sure, the number is only in the thousands right now. Just wait. As more leave and those that remain are called on to pony up more taxes the trickle will become an exodus. 

I've heard some high and mighty comments to the effect "good riddance" to those who renounce. Good luck to those of us who will remain. Talk about choking the golden goose to death!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> Yes a lot of our debt comes from social security, but we also spend an ENORMOUS amount on our military. Do you want to completely axe both?



Perhaps one of the 40,000 servicemen who are about to be laid off would like to discuss that.


----------



## yeggous (Jul 8, 2015)

The country will deal with the national debt the same way that it always has. It will inflate the currency until it diminishes as a percentage of GDP. That is how we paid back the debt from World War II which was even higher. Greece can't do that since their currency is not national and that is their problem.

The financial problem the government isn't talking about is the student loan crisis. The boomers have systematically been reducing funding of public higher education. At the same time college has become all but a requirement to have a career. That has driven up the cost of college to unprecedented levels.

My wife and I "did the right thing" by going to school. We both have graduate degrees and jobs that on paper pay well. Our biggest problem that our student loan debt is significantly higher than our mortgage, has more than double the interest rate, and is not tax deductible. It will take us decades to pay it off if we ever do. That leaves little free cash at the end of the day.

The student loan debt bubble is already having big impacts in the real estate market and it will get worse. As boomers want to dump their McMansions in the suburbs there will be no avoiding the fact that there will not be enough people around to buy them at the price they expect. There are less Millenials to begin with. That coupled with the crushing student loan debt that Millenials face will prevent them from getting the credit for the big mortgage. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> This is a dangerous sentiment to promote. Do you realize that the number of people who are renouncing US citizenship has been increasing steadily and, recently, exponentially? Are you aware that most of these individuals do so to avoid US taxes (like many US corporations) and that many have fundamental disagreements with government policies? Are you aware most are high income earners?
> 
> Sure, the number is only in the thousands right now. Just wait. As more leave and those that remain are called on to pony up more taxes the trickle will become an exodus.
> 
> I've heard some high and mighty comments to the effect "good riddance" to those who renounce. Good luck to those of us who will remain. Talk about choking the golden goose to death!



That's very true. I know a few expats myself and all of them struggle with taxes. Though also, say least according to what they've told me, their tax rates are a little ridiculous for not even living in this country.

I also don't agree with our current corporate tax structure either


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> Perhaps one of the 40,000 servicemen who are about to be laid off would like to discuss that.



And I didn't say there's not a huge problem with our programs our income taxes help pay for, in fact, I said we're in trouble on that front. Yes we pay more than three times the second place military spender, but that doesn't mean our military is taking hits right now too.

My whole point is that we're in trouble and cutting taxes isn't going to do anything but make the problem a lot worse. I also feel that the federal government does a lot for this country and I have no problem giving them my taxes because I'm earning what I'm earning. I'll never understand the desire that once you reach the top you just want to hide in a corner with your money stacked around and not share it with anyone.

If you're one of the smartest kids in class, the teacher asks you to spend some extra time to tutor other kids and you do it because it's a good thing you do and it doesn't take that long. Same thing here, our income bracket has the means to give more. We're still the class of people seeing the biggest jumps in income post income tax, so why is there so much complaining? I view it as part of living in a community that you care about. I care about this country, I care about our community, and I don't want to leave everyone to the wolves


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

yeggous said:


> The country will deal with the national debt the same way that it always has. It will inflate the currency until it diminishes as a percentage of GDP. That is how we paid back the debt from World War II which was even higher. Greece can't do that since their currency is not national and that is their problem.
> 
> The financial problem the government isn't talking about is the student loan crisis. The boomers have systematically been reducing funding of public higher education. At the same time college has become all but a requirement to have a career. That has driven up the cost of college to unprecedented levels.
> 
> ...



And yes, student loans terrify me. The statement is constantly said that millenials don't like and don't want to buy a house or a car. That might be true for some, but for others they just physically can't. The housing market is due for a nasty shock once more millenials start having families but can't buy a house when the baby boomers are selling selling selling


----------



## drjeff (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> You do realize the debt doubled under our friend George Bush right? The last time the national debt decreased as a percentage of our national GDP was under Clinton. Then we went to war with Iraq, Afghanistan, and cut taxes to the wealthy and BOOM $10 trillion of debt. Think that should have happened?
> 
> I don't want to get into a debt discussion. I don't think it should be there either, but how would you propose paying it down if we have to lower taxes because we're taking too much money from hard working bankers on wall street instead of letting them buy land from here to Chicago to build private fiber optic cables?
> 
> ...



Fair points.  Multiple administrations have essentially doubled our cumulative national debt during their watches in the recent past.  Multiple congresses, with both parties in control have passed some irresponsible budgets that have enabled the debt to increase.  As for the Clinton factor and his reduction in the debt, lets not forget that the budgets that he signed into place that enabled those reduction were written and passed by a republican congress, so it was a bi partisan effort that lead to that GOOD result.

Taxes - our tax code has become a joke, basically a series of regulations imposed by lobbyists to favor a certain group over another.  The reality is it can't be fixed. The reality is it should be scrapped and restarted from square one with something like a simple flat tax or a consumption based tax, and if done properly, it realistically could be done in a few pages of text, not a few million!!  I am a proponent of EVERYONE paying at least something.  If you're paying into the system, you're likely to feel more ownership to the system and as such will be paying more attention.  Additionally, this talk of certain people paying their "fair share" and that number is over 50% HAS to stop - when the government is "taking" more from you than you, that you EARNED, you completely remove the incentive to work harder and earn more, the same incentive that DOES drive so many, and as a result very often leads to the expansion of the economy and as such increases in tax collections.  Just because one person thinks that another is making more money than they need, or should have, doesn't mean that the person making that money feels the same way.

In the end, all a tax really is is the government taking money that you earned and then "spending" it in a way that they see fit.  A tax increase is the government taking more of what you earn to spend in a way that they see fit.  A tax cut is the government letting you keep more of what you earned, money that the government NEVER had in the 1st place.  Taxes are a necessary "evil" and they can and have been used in the past, present and future for many good, beneficial things for the country.  When taxes are being used, or threatened to be used as, a "weapon" that put one group of society against another, that is a HUGE issue.  That is a situation that is becoming far too much of a reality today.  That isn't a good thing


----------



## Puck it (Jul 8, 2015)

Just a theory on what happens when you tax the shit out of people.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 8, 2015)

Edd said:


> * I just can't believe what folks are paying for real  estate. It's certainly more of a lifestyle choice vs. an investment  decision.*



I've spent a lot of time pondering investor psychology, and human beings are generally terrible at predicting the future.  Humans live in a world where what we immediately perceive forms a stasis that cannot be seen through.  Roughly a year or so ago, if you told people that oil would be around $50 a barrel in less than a year, they'd have laughed you out of a room even if you provided logical educated support.  So too, IMO, is it with the US housing market.  I cannot TELL you how many times I've heard people say,_ "buy real estate, it always goes up over time"_ or _"a home is the safest investment"_ etc.....  Well, it generally has gone up over time, if your window is a bit less than one human lifetime, about 60 years, from post WWII until the crash.  While that's a LONG run, it certainly doesn't mean it will continue to go up, which is a fact completely lost on most people due to their "stasis view" based on their own life experience.  And I do agree with you, that US home prices are in 2015, are alarmingly disjoined from financial reality in many, if not most, markets.  In some areas, home prices are BACK to pre-bubble prices.  Madness.



Jully said:


> You do realize the debt doubled under our friend George Bush right?



You do realize the capybara is the largest rodent on the planet right?

That's also a fact, though like your above comment, I have no idea how it fits into the discussion.



yeggous said:


> *The country will deal with the national debt the same way that it always has. It will inflate the currency until it diminishes as a percentage of GDP*. That is how we paid back the debt from World War II which was even higher.



This has somehow become a popular thing for people say, but it's easier said than done, not economically easy or painless.  You don't just "inflate away (massive) debt" without taking on a LOT of pain.  Lots. Of. Pain.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 8, 2015)

yeggous said:


> *The financial problem the government isn't talking about is the student loan crisis*.



This will be the next bailout.

  Right now, EVERYONE, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians,  Independents, Phoenix Coyote fans, soundly oppose this idea.  If you put  it to a vote, it would lose massively, nearly 80% to 20%.  But my  prediction is that by the 2024 election Democrat politicians will begin  to support the idea to harness the youth vote, and make citizen  Democrats support it too.  It will be easy with some self-righteous  propaganda slogans, _ "The big Wall Street banks were bailed out, shouldn't we bail out our children?" _  Political child's play.



JimG. said:


> *This is a dangerous sentiment to promote. Do  you realize that the number of people who are renouncing US citizenship  has been increasing steadily and, recently, exponentially? Are you  aware that most of these individuals do so to avoid US taxes (like many  US corporations) and that many have fundamental disagreements with  government policies? Are you aware most are high income earners? Sure,  the number is only in the thousands right now. Just wait. As more leave  and those that remain are called on to pony up more taxes the trickle  will become an exodus.  I've heard some high and mighty comments to the  effect "good riddance" to those who renounce. Good luck to those of us  who will remain. Talk about choking the golden goose to death!*



This entire paragraph is correct, and it isnt limited to nations, but to US states as well.

People and businesses are fleeing high tax states for low tax states.  This is a great story that the media isn't telling.

 In New Jersey, 2 out of every 3 moves are currently OUT of state.   Sometimes it seems like my entire graduating high school class now lives  in the Carolinas.   Eastern PA has become a boomtown of former NJ  residents who "hopped" over the river to avoid myriad taxes.  Many, as  you correctly noted, are high income earners.  As these people flee, the  "survivors" are asked to pay more.


----------



## yeggous (Jul 8, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> This will be the next bailout.
> 
> Right now, EVERYONE, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians,  Independents, Phoenix Coyote fans, soundly oppose this idea.  If you put  it to a vote, it would lose massively, nearly 80% to 20%.  But my  prediction is that by the 2024 election Democrat politicians will begin  to support the idea to harness the youth vote, and make citizen  Democrats support it too.  It will be easy with some self-righteous  propaganda slogans, _ "The big Wall Street banks were bailed out, shouldn't we bail out our children?" _  Political child's play.
> 
> ...



Half of the people I work with have fled New Jersey to Massachusetts. For them it had nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with New Jersey.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 8, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Half of the people I work with have fled New Jersey to Massachusetts. For them it had nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with New Jersey.


Taxes in MA are way lower than NY and CA.  When I moved here, everybody called it Taxachussetts, obviously they never lived in CA or NY.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 8, 2015)

yeggous said:


> Half of the people I work with have fled New Jersey to Massachusetts. For them it had nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with New Jersey.



The top 5 states NJ has lost wealth to (IRS data) are:


1) Florida
2) Pennsylvania
3) North Carolina
4) California
5) Virginia

The only surprise on that list is California, though that may well have to do with the recent rebound in tech jobs.  

EDIT:

And just for fun, the top 5 states Massachusetts is losing its' wealth to are:

1) Florida 
2) New Hampshire 
3) California 
4) Maine 
5) North Carolina


If you haven't been to the Carolina's in the last 10 years, you'll probably be shocked.  New Jersey residents are fleeing to EVERYWHERE though, and there are a lot of us, so it's not a complete shock if you're seeing more of them.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> And I didn't say there's not a huge problem with our programs our income taxes help pay for, in fact, I said we're in trouble on that front. Yes we pay more than three times the second place military spender, but that doesn't mean our military is taking hits right now too.
> 
> My whole point is that we're in trouble and cutting taxes isn't going to do anything but make the problem a lot worse. I also feel that the federal government does a lot for this country and I have no problem giving them my taxes because I'm earning what I'm earning. I'll never understand the desire that once you reach the top you just want to hide in a corner with your money stacked around and not share it with anyone.
> 
> If you're one of the smartest kids in class, the teacher asks you to spend some extra time to tutor other kids and you do it because it's a good thing you do and it doesn't take that long. Same thing here, our income bracket has the means to give more. We're still the class of people seeing the biggest jumps in income post income tax, so why is there so much complaining? I view it as part of living in a community that you care about. I care about this country, I care about our community, and I don't want to leave everyone to the wolves



I've said before, I pay my taxes and rarely complain. I agree the higher income earners should pay more.

Problem is, many don't. Happy to pay my share but I do not care to pick up the slack for wealthy tax evaders and corporations.


----------



## kartski (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> Yes a lot of our debt comes from social security, but we also spend an ENORMOUS amount on our military. Do you want to completely axe both?



None of the Debt comes from Social Security it is paid for by Workers and Employers not Taxpayers. The Federal Gov't has been borrowing from SS to pay for Tax Cuts. The Govt owes SS about 2.6 Trillion at this point and has to pay it back but SS is not a cause of the Debt but a victim.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> I've said before, I pay my taxes and rarely complain. I agree the higher income earners should pay more.
> 
> Problem is, many don't. Happy to pay my share but I do not care to pick up the slack for wealthy tax evaders and corporations.


  Agreed but when money is wasted like it is then I don't want to pay more.  And in regards to evading taxes, if you submit a W2 with your taxes and that is the majority of your income then there is really no way to reduce that tax burden.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 8, 2015)

drjeff said:


> Taxes - *our tax code has become a joke*, basically a series of regulations imposed by lobbyists to favor a certain group over another.  The reality is it can't be fixed.* The reality is it should be scrapped and restarted from square one with something like a simple flat tax or a consumption based tax, and if done properly, it realistically could be done in a few pages of text, not a few million!*!  I am a proponent of EVERYONE paying at least something.  If you're paying into the system, you're likely to feel more ownership to the system and as such will be paying more attention.



While the above is true, it will never happen unless you have a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican president.  
The entire power structure of Democratic party politics relies on the US tax code, and who they can favor and give goodies to.  While Republicans absolutely do abuse this system as well, it is not their life-blood and nowhere near as important to them politically.



kartski said:


> *The Federal Gov't has been borrowing from SS to pay for Tax Cuts.* The Govt owes SS about 2.6 Trillion at this point and has to pay it back but SS is not a cause of the Debt but a victim.



 Did you read that on Huffington Post or something?   I mean, ignoring the fact that it conveniently ascribes 100% blame to Republican initiatives and is thus blatantly partisan, it makes absolutely no mathematical sense. Social Security (SS) is far more underfunded than simply a summation of any "tax cuts".    The #1 reason SS is horse****** is that the program promises to pay out much more in actuarial benefits than the net contributions the program receives.

SS is without question the most financially destructive, wasteful, and economically ruinous program ever devised by the US government.  The fact that so many Americans view SS as a "good thing", is empirically demonstrative of how ambivalent, detached from financial reality, and "dumb" many people are.  The very basis of the SS program is, *"You are too stupid to properly plan for your future, so big government is going to do that for you" *- and fail at it miserably.



Puck it said:


> Agreed but *when money is wasted like it is then I don't want to pay more.*  And in regards to evading taxes, if you submit a W2 with your taxes and that is the majority of your income then there is really no way to reduce that tax burden.



Yup. The problem isn't that government doesn't take enough of our money in taxes, the problem is the government spends too much.


----------



## Tin (Jul 8, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup. The problem isn't that government doesn't take enough of our money in taxes, the problem is the government spends too much.



For once, my libtard self will agree with you and say they also don't spend it in the right places.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 8, 2015)

Tin said:


> For once, my libtard self will agree with you and say they also don't spend it in the right places.


. You know it is a disease!


----------



## dlague (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> I mean the top fifth of people paying 4/5s of taxes isn't a total travesty in my opinion. We have a gradient income tax. I'd like to see what percentage of the 80-90% earners pay of that income tax compared to the top 10% percent. There are people with $3 million salaries that should translate to more income tax than someone making $30,000 or 1% of that.
> 
> This massive income tax isn't hurting the top earners that much because since 1979 the top 20% of earners in the country have seen post income tax income rise by greater percentages than the remaining 80% with the top 1% of those earners seeing a 200% growth in income after they paid their taxes compared to the 20 to 80% earners seeing a 40% rise in income.
> 
> Income inequality in this country is rising despite all the uncle Sam benefits and high income tax on the top earners so I don't feel too bad about that tax statistic. If the top earners were seeing equal income rises to the rest of the country or were seeing less growth, then we'd have a discussion.



May not hurt top earners but it hits the upper middle class that are trying to break the 250K barrier.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Agreed but when money is wasted like it is then I don't want to pay more.  And in regards to evading taxes, if you submit a W2 with your taxes and that is the majority of your income then there is really no way to reduce that tax burden.



Agreed on all points. The evaders don't submit W2's or work in a cash only environment.

If we keep agreeing like this we might wind up singing "Kumbaya" together.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 8, 2015)

kartski said:


> None of the Debt comes from Social Security it is paid for by Workers and Employers not Taxpayers. The Federal Gov't has been borrowing from SS to pay for Tax Cuts. The Govt owes SS about 2.6 Trillion at this point and has to pay it back but SS is not a cause of the Debt but a victim.



This is a BIG pet peeve of mine when people talk about tax cuts, and how that statement isn't accurrate.

Bottom line, a tax cut "costs" the government nothing.  Its ISN'T the government writing out a person or a corporation a check for $X, it is simply the government letting a person or company keep more of what they (the person or company) earned, money that the government *NEVER* had in the first place.  The government makes it seem like they are doing the individual a huge favor when they pass a tax cut, when in reality all that they are doing is letting you keep more of what was yours, not theirs, in the first place.

The only time a tax cut might result in the government writing out a check is if it is in conjunction with some type of earned income tax credit where the end result is the person (or corporation) receiving money from the government above and beyond what they may (or in the case of some people/entities) may not have paid in the first place.

So when someone says that tax cuts "cost" the gov't $X for which they had to borrow $Y from someplace else and that's what added to the debt, what it actually is is that the gov't let you keep more of what was yours all along, but continued to spend like it was their's all along.  It's just the government manipulating the wording to their advantage.  Similar to when the government proposes a budget of say $4 Trillion, but then passes a budget of $3.5 Trillion (but only takes in $3 Trillion in tax revenue), they'll spin it as they cut $500 Billion from the budget, all the while they're still adding $500 Billion to the national debt - Washington Math and Washington wordsmithing at its finest


----------



## Puck it (Jul 8, 2015)

Another scam by the government is the mortgage bailout.  This really pisses me off.  I pay my mortgage every month and never late. But someone can be late up to months and are allowed to stay in the house ad gets help to stay.  That is f'ing wrong.


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> While the above is true, it will never happen unless you have a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican president.
> The entire power structure of Democratic party politics relies on the US tax code, and who they can favor and give goodies to.  While Republicans absolutely do abuse this system as well, it is not their life-blood and nowhere near as important to them politically.
> 
> 
> ...



Now hold up, I don't think that's quite fair to say. The reason I threw George Bush in there was because I knew you'd say something like this and that "liberals spend too much." In reality, both parties spend a lot and our tax code doesn't fit either bill right now. All of Bush's tax initiatives he put into place did not help much with the debt and 2008's recession happened on his watch under his taxes.

The Clinton administration and its success at decreasing the national debt as a function of GDP was a beautiful bipartisan measure in my opinion, I agree.

Back to your point about a fully Republican government being the only way to restructure our taxes: you do realize Bernie Sanders wants to completely redo our taxes too right? He's looking back to the Eisenhower administration's tax policy to shape his own! We don't need a republican president to redo our taxes, we just need a different president. Let's try to be a little more partisan next time BG.

I also would like to agree with you that SS is hilarious both in theory and in practice. Ever since I got my first paycheck I didn't want to see SS taken out. We've seen the problems coming for years and yet multiple presidents of both parties did nothing to stop it and now millions of elderly depend on it and it's going to screw millions more very soon.

And yes, the government spends too much in the wrong places. We're a very bloated country.

And Dlague: it can hurt a lot of people trying to break the 250k barrier, I agree. I initially brought this up, and apologize for sidetracking everything somewhat, to respond to Steamboat1 freaking out that the top 20% of earners pay 80% of income taxes. That, I don't have a problem with. The 250k is potentially a problem, the issue is that wherever you place the lower threshold for a "wealthy" tax hurts the people right at that threshold and those trying to break into the threshold


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Another scam by the government is the mortgage bailout.  This really pisses me off.  I pay my mortgage every month and never late. But someone can be late up to months and are allowed to stay in the house ad gets help to stay.  That is f'ing wrong.



Tell me about it. Bailouts suck for everyone except the people who screwed up really badly


----------



## yeggous (Jul 8, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> The top 5 states NJ has lost wealth to (IRS data) are:
> 
> 
> 1) Florida
> ...



Neither of those state lists are surprising. Both lose retirees to Florida. Both lose a lot to neighboring states which is natural as people move locally across borders. North Carolina has been growing for decades. California (specifically the Bay Area) is booming.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Tin (Jul 8, 2015)

Puck it said:


> . You know it is a disease!



One can be a lib and not a dem though.


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> The Clinton administration and its success at decreasing the national debt as a function of GDP was a beautiful bipartisan measure in my opinion,



Too much Credit is given to Clinton for reducing the deficit .
For most of the 90's Oil was under $20 a barrel .
Although he should get credit for lighting the Glass Stegal fuse.


----------



## Edd (Jul 8, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Another scam by the government is the mortgage bailout.  This really pisses me off.  I pay my mortgage every month and never late. But someone can be late up to months and are allowed to stay in the house ad gets help to stay.  That is f'ing wrong.



You seem way, way, way too worried about what the other kids get and you don't. Yeah, life isn't fair, and isn't going to any time soon. The deadbeats have always been there, and are never going away. They'll always figure out how to get something for nothing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 8, 2015)

Can we keep this discussion going without politics?

I'd like to remind folks that the majority of the forum doesn't want to see a Democrat vs Republican mud flinging match.   

It is a ski forum first and foremost.

You CAN discuss economics without getting into talk radio level partisan pissing contests.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jul 8, 2015)

Both parties suck and need to go


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 8, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You CAN discuss economics without getting into talk radio level partisan pissing contests.



Hahaha too funny !


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 8, 2015)

ScottySkis said:


> Both parties suck and need to go



1


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Edd said:


> You seem way, way, way too worried about what the other kids get and you don't. Yeah, life isn't fair, and isn't going to any time soon. The deadbeats have always been there, and are never going away. They'll always figure out how to get something for nothing.



I think Puck it's attitude is quite fair. Deadbeats get things for free because our government (and us) allows it. Why should he feel OK about paying his bills on time and then watch others who do not manage their finances get bailed out? I'm sick of that crap too.

A free market allows failure to occur. If an individual or corporation manages their money poorly why can't our society just let them fail?
It's the same attitude that dictates that winners and losers get a trophy. Believe me, you learn a lot more from failures in your life.

Our current obsession with bailouts will destroy our economy.


----------



## Edd (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> I think Puck it's attitude is quite fair. Deadbeats get things for free because our government (and us) allows it. Why should he feel OK about paying his bills on time and then watch others who do not manage their finances get bailed out? I'm sick of that crap too.




His attitude is. Life isn't and never has been. I'm sympathetic. The Rush Limbaughs of the world prey on these concerns and stoke the fire. The subject touches a nerve with me because I worked with a guy for years (until about a week ago) who would never shut up about this. 

When we were young some kid always got an extra Popsicle. That is never changing. Some folks, like you and Puck it, I suppose, have strong sense of fairness. Just isn't realistic to expect it, though. Complain about it, occasionally, sure. Puck it complains a lot.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Edd said:


> His attitude is. Life isn't and never has been. I'm sympathetic. The Rush Limbaughs of the world prey on these concerns and stoke the fire. The subject touches a nerve with me because I worked with a guy for years (until about a week ago) who would never shut up about this.
> 
> When we were young some kid always got an extra Popsicle. That is never changing. Some folks, like you and Puck it, I suppose, have strong sense of fairness. Just isn't realistic to expect it, though. Complain about it, occasionally, sure. Puck it complains a lot.



You seem determined to bring politics into this discussion. Yeah, life isn't fair. So what is wrong with letting deadbeats fail? Life isn't fair, you just said it. 

I am not conservative or liberal. I don't like putting people into boxes and I don't appreciate you trying to put me into one. I don't listen to the political talking heads and Limbaugh is just a clown to me. So are the rabble rousers on the other side. Please let's not end an interesting and timely discussion because of politics.

I don't know where you grew up but in my neighborhood those who got extra earned it. To imply that Puck it or me are somehow jealous of deadbeats who get bailed out is at best insultingly condescending.


----------



## Edd (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> You seem determined to bring politics into this discussion. Yeah, life isn't fair. So what is wrong with letting deadbeats fail? Life isn't fair, you just said it.
> 
> I am not conservative or liberal. I don't like putting people into boxes and I don't appreciate you trying to put me into one. I don't listen to the political talking heads and Limbaugh is just a clown to me. So are the rabble rousers on the other side. Please let's not end an interesting and timely discussion because of politics.
> 
> I don't know where you grew up but in my neighborhood those who got extra earned it. To imply that Puck it or me are somehow jealous of deadbeats who get bailed out is at best insultingly condescending.



Let the deadbeats fail, fine by me. They'll always figure out a way to get what they want. Aside from mentioning Rush, I'm not seeing how I'm determined to bring politics into it. Nobody said "jealous", all I said was "complains a lot". It gets to be too much.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

Edd said:


> Let the deadbeats fail, fine by me. They'll always figure out a way to get what they want. Aside from mentioning Rush, I'm not seeing how I'm determined to bring politics into it. Nobody said "jealous", all I said was "complains a lot". It gets to be too much.



If it's too much then why read it? And reply to it over and over?

It sounded like you were implying (the word I used, not "said") that we were somehow envious; the childhood popsicle reference reinforced that.

Sorry I misinterpreted your meaning, not the first time I've done that. I like the topic and the feedback and don't want to see the thread locked.


----------



## Edd (Jul 8, 2015)

JimG. said:


> If it's too much then why read it? And reply to it over and over?
> 
> It sounded like you were implying (the word I used, not "said") that we were somehow envious; the childhood popsicle reference reinforced that.
> 
> Sorry I misinterpreted your meaning, not the first time I've done that. I like the topic and the feedback and don't want to see the thread locked.



"Used" vs. "said". That is not useful discussion, I assume you'll agree. 

I'm busting his balls because he's complained a lot about that issue. This goes far beyond this thread. It encompasses easily over a dozen threads over the years. What I'm doing a bad job of pointing out, is that the rich will take far more of your wealth than the poor ever will. So why complain about the poor scam artists?  In no way am I implying that anyone here is jealous of them. I'm sure neither of you want the life of a deadbeat. They may get too much for too little effort, but their life can't be good.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2015)

"Implied" vs. "said"; you didn't say we were jealous, but I thought you implied it. 

And now I see what you were trying to say and I don't disagree with you. In many ways the wealthy use the poor for profit. The handouts only serve to keep the poor where they are, just enough to get by but never enough to progress from poverty. That is my main complaint.

Let's move on, disaster averted.


----------



## Jully (Jul 8, 2015)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Too much Credit is given to Clinton for reducing the deficit .
> For most of the 90's Oil was under $20 a barrel .
> Although he should get credit for lighting the Glass Stegal fuse.



I don't want to give CLINTON the credit. I want to give the administration, house, and Senate credit. Last time significant bipartisan action was successful in my opinion. Don't want to talk about parties though.

I have my own issues with Clinton himself. Sure oil was cheap but why does that reduce any credit given to him? Oil was cheap before Clinton and won't ever reach $20 a barrel but has been cheapish at points since Clinton.


----------



## Not Sure (Jul 8, 2015)

Jully said:


> I don't want to give CLINTON the credit. I want to give the administration, house, and Senate credit. Last time significant bipartisan action was successful in my opinion. Don't want to talk about parties though.
> 
> I have my own issues with Clinton himself. Sure oil was cheap but why does that reduce any credit given to him? Oil was cheap before Clinton and won't ever reach $20 a barrel but has been cheapish at points since Clinton.



The Economic condtions were right for an expansion, Cheap oil in my opinion was a big part of that . Anybody that would have been in office at that time would have looked great. His cooperation with congress had to do with the Contract with America success ( Imagine politicians proposing things to actually vote for )at least he was a pragmatist and not an idealog.

The Glass Stegal repeal that was proposed by a the Republicans and only had one Dem vote but Clinton could have Vetoed it.
So the disaster that follwed was also Bi partisan


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

Edd said:


> His attitude is. Life isn't and never has been. I'm sympathetic. The Rush Limbaughs of the world prey on these concerns and stoke the fire. The subject touches a nerve with me because I worked with a guy for years (until about a week ago) who would never shut up about this.
> 
> When we were young some kid always got an extra Popsicle. That is never changing. Some folks, like you and Puck it, I suppose, have strong sense of fairness. Just isn't realistic to expect it, though. Complain about it, occasionally, sure. Puck it complains a lot.


What the fuck?  I do not complain about it all the time on here.  I know life is not fair that is why I don't want the bailouts.


----------



## Edd (Jul 9, 2015)

Puck it said:


> What the fuck?  I do not complain about it all the time on here.  I know life is not fair that is why I don't want the bailouts.



I'm too lazy to dig for quotes and I've spent too much time arguing. I'm bowing out.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

Edd said:


> I'm too lazy to dig for quotes and I've spent too much time arguing. I'm bowing out.


 Good idea.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 9, 2015)

Edd said:


> What I'm doing a bad job of pointing out, is that the rich will take far more of your wealth than the poor ever will.


Huh??????  I can see why you're doing a bad job of pointing that out.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 9, 2015)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> *The Economic condtions were right for an expansion, Cheap oil in my opinion was a big part of that . Anybody that would have been in office at that time would have looked great. *His cooperation with congress had to do with the Contract with America success ( Imagine politicians proposing things to actually vote for )at least he was a pragmatist and not an idealog.
> 
> The Glass Stegal repeal that was proposed by a the Republicans and only had one Dem vote but Clinton could have Vetoed it.
> So the disaster that follwed was also Bi partisan



Clinton benefited massively as well from his time in office almost perfectly coinciding with the internet boom.  The internet is one of those human technological creations that happens once every......_several _generations in terms of it's overall magnitude in economic  importance.  The GDP growth that occurred during the internet revolution was positively MASSIVE, and GLOBAL in terms of its' consumer market reach, yet most of the players were American companies.  Since the dawn of the computer, America has had it pretty good with the exception of a few crashes (internet bubble, housing bubble).


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 9, 2015)

I've always believed that it myopic to hold the sitting president entirely responsible for the performance of the economy (good or bad) during their term.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 9, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I've always believed that it myopic to hold the sitting president entirely responsible for the performance of the economy (good or bad) during their term.



Terribly.   The president has more of an "opportunity" to do something to impair the economy, than he does to aid the economy.  

The reality in politics, however, is that perception is truth, and most people believe the president has a lot to do with the economy.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Terribly.   The president has more of an "opportunity" to do something to impair the economy, than he does to aid the economy.
> 
> The reality in politics, however, is that perception is truth, and most people believe the president has a lot to do with the economy.


  I agree totally with that thought about aiding and impairing but if the economy is going to tank then he also has little effect on the tanking unless caused by his policies.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jul 9, 2015)




----------



## drjeff (Jul 9, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


>



And to extend it out through the present.......


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


>


Where's t rest of the data?  For like 2007 thru 2015!!!!!!!!


----------



## drjeff (Jul 9, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Where's t rest of the data?  For like 2007 thru 2015!!!!!!!!



See my post above yours Puck! ;-)

Those "negative", what would be blue, lines, if it was on the same graph, get awfully long starting after the 2008 election....


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

drjeff said:


> See my post above yours Puck! ;-)
> 
> Those "negative", what would be blue, lines, if it was on the same graph, get awfully long starting after the 2008 election....


I know.  Interesting how people do not present all of the data when it does not shed a good picture.  Thx.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 9, 2015)

The politics are becoming overwhelming now. 

I've mentioned it twice before, this is strike 2 1/2.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 9, 2015)

JimG. said:


> The politics are becoming overwhelming now.
> 
> I've mentioned it twice before, this is strike 2 1/2.


No politics at all.  Just wanted to see the rest of the data up to now.  We can agree on that. Right?


----------



## mbedle (Jul 9, 2015)

Interesting article on time.com about amount paid in Federal taxes for different income groups. 

How Much Taxes You Pay By Income level


----------



## JimG. (Jul 9, 2015)

Puck it said:


> No politics at all.  Just wanted to see the rest of the data up to now.  We can agree on that. Right?



Our currently dysfunctional society is obsessed with "winning". And if we can win and gloat about it, even better.

Numbers can be used and twisted to support any viewpoint, the solution to societal issues are found in compromise.

Compromise has been lost in our political process. Politics is all about the "win". It dominates our culture. 

We have decided it has no place here at AZ. Please let's try to discuss differing viewpoints without disrespecting each other.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 9, 2015)

Surely the standard can be relaxed in the summer.  


.


----------



## Tin (Jul 9, 2015)

As a stats geek I'm loving all the misleading graphs, charts, and numbers getting thrown around. We can all make numbers show whatever we want. In these discussions they are nothing more than a rhetorical device. One person posts a chart supporting their argument then BG goes all FOX and does his thing.

Whoever said numbers don't lie was a dumbass. Just let it die already.


----------



## kartski (Jul 9, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Did you read that on Huffington Post or something?   I mean, ignoring the fact that it conveniently ascribes 100% blame to Republican initiatives and is thus blatantly partisan, it makes absolutely no mathematical sense. Social Security (SS) is far more underfunded than simply a summation of any "tax cuts".



http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2012/opdm072012.pdf

Page 6 (figures in millions):

Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund..............................................2,643,386   (47,014)    2,596,371

Used to pay Bills by Dem and Repub Administrations since 1986. It is what it is. It covered Bills that Taxes didn't. It offset Tax cuts. Huff it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 9, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Surely the standard can be relaxed in the summer.
> 
> 
> .



I don't see the need to relax the no politics policy when there is a million  other places on the net discuss politics, including other ski forums.  

Relaxing the moderation of politics on this site has been tried many times over the years and the results have been regrettable every time.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 9, 2015)

I give Puck it a lot of credit...he held his peace and let others give me the excuse to lock this mess.


----------

