Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to No Mercy 4 Life. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
CNN Quick Vote
Topic Started: Oct 9 2008, 04:53 PM (3,527 Views)
The Wizard of Goz
Member Avatar
FWO Suxxx!
I think the real issue here is the definition of "wealthy." I don't think they only mean these millionaire and billionaire people when they say "wealthy," and that's how some people interpret it. It's absurd to think that the definition of wealthy in NY is the same as wealthy in a state like FL where costs of living are significantly lower. Hell even the difference between NYC and northern NY is ridiculous.

Here's what I mean: If you make $80k a year and have a family of four in NYC, you're going to have a very difficult time, as the cost of living in the area is astronomical. At best you should be considered middle class in that living situation. But give someone in northern NY or a cheaper state 80k and they could have a family of 4 and live an upper class/"wealthy" kind of life (I'm not talking caviar and ferraris, but there won't be any scrambling to pay the bills). So why is it that they receive the same fate when it comes to the federal income tax cuts/hikes when their financial situations are completely different?

My point is that removing the tax cuts for the "wealthy" may not be as cut and dry as it seems - some people are considered wealthy by the country-wide income averages but in their specific area they may not have it so great. We're not only talking about people with 7 figure incomes. I'm all for a system to determine how you fall out for tax-breaks with a cost of living index involved.

As for the people who vote for keep tax cuts for the wealthy only, that 3% is on their own and I can't help em.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
You're saying that living in NY would be middle class but living outside would be lower class cause you could afford more things. But living in NY IS a thing. It's a privilege that others don't get. If a billionaire decides he wants a house made entirely of gold, but it has to be smaller than his current mansion, are his living standards really dropping? So in my opinion the tax breaks are fair, New Yorkers are just screwing themselves by living in such a pricey city. I'm not planning on living within the DC Beltway cause rents jump up once you get inside there too, but that's a choice for me to make, not something that should affect government policy. Otherwise you're just saying "I spend more money therefore I deserve more money". The wages in New York are already adjusted to reflect housing prices, you Yorkies can't get everything.

Part of this recession was caused by people living beyond their means, taking out mortgages for places they couldn't afford. If we give tax breaks to places that do that, we're just rewarding the same behavior that leads to recessions.

These were TEMPORARY tax cuts anyways. If someone moved into New York in the past decade because of his lowered tax rate and now won't be able to afford it, it's his fault for being financially stupid. The cuts were meant to boost spending, not to boost the value of your home.

Further, NOBODY is getting taxed on their first $250,000. If you make a million bucks a year, you won't be paying a dime more in taxes on the first $250,000, just the $750,000 that follows. So in an absolute sense, there's a cushion too.

So I understand your point about New York, I just can't agree. Everyone in the city has a right to leave if they want, but the reason most don't is because those low-rent cities where $80k may be upper class don't have $80k jobs to offer. They're not just easier versions of New York, they've got their own individual problems. So I'm making up numbers, but imagine I asked it like this: Is it fairer to tax a city like New York with 8% unemployment or a city like Bumtown, PA with 16% unemployment? There's a hell of a lot of different ways people will be affected by these taxes no doubt, but trying to level the playing field is impossible in my mind because it's subjective.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Wizard of Goz
Member Avatar
FWO Suxxx!
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you Mr. Brow, and here is why:

-You got me wrong. Living IN NYC would be a struggle, while living OUTSIDE of NYC would be easier/not lower class since you can afford more on the same salary due to cost of living differences.

-All jobs do not have cost of living factors built into them to reflect home prices. My example is working for a company like Verizon. My friend worked for them before he got laid off and was making $70k a year. He was able to move out of his parents house but he couldn't buy a home and only had a small apartment. He would have to go to Northern NY for training and would see guys at the same level as him within Verizon, doing the same job and making the same salary as him, and they had beautiful homes.

-What if you were born in NYC? Should you have to move out of the area once you get out of college (since probably 95% of kids don't get a job after college making enough to support themselves in NYC,especially now)? What if everyone took your mentality and moved out of NYC? The economy of the city would crumble because the only people left would be the highly paid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
-I don't know what you're refuting with the first point. I understood that living in expensive NYC is tough, I'm just saying residency shouldn't be treated like a handicap that can't be solved by moving out. Everybody has to make financial decisions based on their tax rates. Therefore I see no problem treating in-city residents equally as non-NYCers; cost-of-living is a reflection of personal choice in my opinion, not some inalienable problem that only in-city residents have to deal with. People live in NYC cause it's got jobs, utilities, transportation, community, night life, etc. and the rent reflects all those luxuries that many poorer cities lack. So to tax NYCers less would be to punish poorer communities for having fewer expensive luxuries. I feel like you're only treating 'struggle' as if it's financial, whereas every community has its own struggles and one of the reasons NYC rent is high is because they've eliminated many of those struggles poorer cities have.

-You're right that all jobs don't have cost of living factored in. But if your friend knows he can have a better house up north doing the same damn job, then tell him to fucking do it! I mean, what the hell? It's your friend's job to get the best life he can. If he knows he can have a better life up north doing the same job, that's his action to take; the government doesn't need to make a special tax bracket for him. But my guess is he's choosing to stay in NYC for other reasons, whether it be the community, the job opportunities, the night life, or whatever. Thus you're claiming that $70,000 + a big house is what he wants, yet his actions suggest $70,000 + a small apartment + all the extra NYC stuff is what he really wants. He's not being discriminated against for living in NYC, he's choosing to have less spending cash.

-Yes. You move out. The economy wouldn't crumble. Businesses would realize they're losing the low-wage workers and have to raise their wages if they wanted to keep them on. Thus all those jobs that aren't cost-of-living adjusted would have to become so. The government doesn't protect your right to live in the same city your whole life. Think about all the manufacturing ghost towns that used to be bustling but now are dying economically. Those kids have to move out too for the same reason (can't find sufficient wages to support residence), not because I want to be cruel to them, but because the only alternative is giving them artificial tax breaks just to support a town that can't support itself. Isn't that the same logic? But I don't feel cruel about doing it to New York because New York has the ability to adjust whereas these ghost towns really will just die. If your Verizon friend really wants a bigger house, he should have gotten his co-workers together and threatened to apply up at the Northern NY offices. His office would have had to respond; either by firing him and forcing him into applying up North or by offering him higher wages.


So to condense it, I see this as either being;

A. $70k + big house = $70k + small apartment + NYC extra stuff, so wages are appropriate.

or

B. $70k + big house > $70k + small apartment + NYC extra stuff, in which case wages are inappropriate to their settings and there appears to be a market failure.

If A is right, you obviously don't need a government solution as things are already equal. But if B is right, which seems to be your claim, then I still don't see the government being the proper response. Tax breaks that help NYCers to compensate for the inequality would at the same time be artificially sustaining this inequality. It would thus prevent people like your friend from being fed up and moving out, thus preventing NYC wages from adjusting appropriately.

Now this is obviously getting to be part of a bigger gripe of mine. In 1965 CEOs made 26x that of their average worker, in 1980 it was 40x, in 1989 it was 72x, but by 2004 it was up to 500x. That's completely ridiculous, and obviously why I'm for taxing the rich, but it's also why I'm for people, especially in rich cities like NY, putting pressure on execs for higher pay. I don't want to be mean to NYC kids but in some senses I'm in the same boat; I live in the 3rd richest county in the nation and love it, but when I move out it's gonna be to ghetto ass PG county where I'll have to commute into the city, where I also can't afford to live. But that's just the breaks of living around any city, not a reason for tax breaks.

And since I'm getting too theoretical, I'd like to point out that I'm only for the wealthy tax cuts ending, so that wouldn't affect any but the richest kids. Overall I am for a social safety net and not just throwing kids to the wolves of the economy, but I'd rather put tax money toward your friend getting job training or education than just giving him a few extra bucks a month.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Wizard of Goz
Member Avatar
FWO Suxxx!
TheEyebrow
Nov 20 2010, 04:36 PM
-Yes. You move out. The economy wouldn't crumble. Businesses would realize they're losing the low-wage workers and have to raise their wages if they wanted to keep them on. Thus all those jobs that aren't cost-of-living adjusted would have to become so. The government doesn't protect your right to live in the same city your whole life. Think about all the manufacturing ghost towns that used to be bustling but now are dying economically. Those kids have to move out too for the same reason (can't find sufficient wages to support residence), not because I want to be cruel to them, but because the only alternative is giving them artificial tax breaks just to support a town that can't support itself. Isn't that the same logic? But I don't feel cruel about doing it to New York because New York has the ability to adjust whereas these ghost towns really will just die. If your Verizon friend really wants a bigger house, he should have gotten his co-workers together and threatened to apply up at the Northern NY offices. His office would have had to respond; either by firing him and forcing him into applying up North or by offering him higher wages.
Eye, in theory, yes this sounds great: everyone would threaten to move to a cheaper place and the employers would have to make changes to keep the lower/middle class labor force in their area, but you know this isn't how the real world works. You know that employers (especially government agencies where this issue in wage between regions lies) are not going to make adjustments until it is too late and these people are already gone. I've seen this happen at my job, people leave for new jobs that are less demanding, but the people who stay get the burden of added workload put on them and management won't hire more people to ease that burden, so then they leave too. Most of these big companies are reactive, not proactive.

In my Verizon example, you can't gather a bunch of your co-workers and apply to northern NY offices - management would shoot it down and likely find a reason to fire you since you're starting "trouble." Your theory is fine for one person, but if a majority try to make this change, the corporations will stomp it out. In that situation, these guys who work in our area are "stuck" since it is better to have the job and struggle here than risk threatening a move, getting fired, and being left with nothing at all. How do you then pay the bills? The risk is far too high. The real world isn't so theoretical unfortunately or these problems would be much easier to solve.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomAss
Member Avatar
FLAWLESS
If you're making $250,000 a year, you're not struggling unless you've put yourself in a position to struggle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HBJabroni
Member Avatar
FLAWLESS
TomAss
Nov 22 2010, 09:26 PM
If you're making $250,000 a year, you're not struggling unless you've put yourself in a position to struggle.
you mean the way the middle class did, and now expect help from taxing more on the wealthy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
This time, the poll comes from IGN:

Quote:
 
Move or Kinect? You decide

PlayStation Move 33.01% (15,656 votes)

Kinect for Xbox 360 39.8% (18,879 votes)

Both 4.26% (2,020 votes)

Neither 22.93% (10,877 votes)

Total Votes: 47,432
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Wizard of Goz
Member Avatar
FWO Suxxx!
Interesting, I haven't seen an ad for Move yet but Kinect is all over the television. I would have thought that would make it a blowout in favor of Kinect but it's much closer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Quote:
 
Do you buy lottery tickets?

No
55%
33166

Yes
45%
27509

Total votes: 60675
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Not your most interesting one A1.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Creepo H
Member Avatar
Smackdown Board President
TheEyebrow
Jan 8 2011, 02:31 PM
Not your most interesting one A1.
Those are fighting words
"Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomAss
Member Avatar
FLAWLESS
Oh man
EYE VS A1 at NOMERCLEMANIA?!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
TomAss
Jan 10 2011, 05:34 PM
Oh man
EYE VS A1 at NOMERCLEMANIA?!
A1 would have to win the Woyal Wumble first, as I'm clearly the champion. Run and quick vote that homeboy!
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Hey guy! I like lottery tickets. I don't buy them, but I like them!

The reason I archived that poll is because Iowa has a great lottery where a fixed % of the profits go directly to schools. That and uh, ..., no really, that was all I had. Screw you F doubleu woah!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Quote:
 
What did you think of the Oscar broadcast?

Didn't watch
59%
3966

Bad
25%
1699

Good
15%
1039

Total votes: 6704
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Quote:
 
Is Barack Obama a one-term president?

No
51%
73165

Yes
49%
70636

Total votes: 143801
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Quote:
 
Are you giving something up for Lent?

No
77%
177889

Yes
23%
53692

Total votes: 231581
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
I voted yes

Quote:
 
Do you have confidence in U.S. disaster preparedness?

No
78%
101859

Yes
22%
27948

Total votes: 129807
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
The question is kinda bad (not A1's fault) cause disasters are relative to that which with you're accustomed. Look at comparisons for deaths in developed vs. developing countries: Year, Place, Richter Scale size, Deaths.

Developing Countries
2006 Java----------------------------6.3---5,800
2005 Kashmir-Pakistan--------------7.6--- 87,000
2004 Indian Ocean and tsunami----9.2--- 229,000
2003 Bam-Iran-----------------------6.6--- 27,000
2001 Gujarat-India-------------------7.9--- 30,000
1976 Tangshan-China----------------8.2--- 242,000
Developed countries
2004 Chuetsu-Japan------------------6.9--- 39
1995 Great Hanshin-Kobe, Japan----7.2--- 6,400
1994 Northridge-Los Angeles, USA-- 6.7--- 60

The 1989 San Fran quake was 7.1 and only killed 68. We just have much better buildings. Even the difference between Haiti and Chile was huge, as you saw when they had similar earthquakes but Chile's hardly had any coverage because they were prepared. If you take Haiti, or the earthquakes in China, as a baseline for what humans experience in non-rich countries, then we're super damn safe I'd say. FEMA was pretty incompetent during New Orleans and we could definitely be a lot better given that, but I'd still say we're fine on a relative scale.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · News & Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply