TwinTownBisonFan wrote:it's more than us real people make in 5 years... now back to your escalade and complain that 1077 make it impossible to hire a good landscaper these days...AZGrizFan wrote:
Yep. Somehow that makes one "rich".
No...they decided they didn't get enough of my severance package.Wedgebuster wrote:Sounds like you either purposefully stiffed them when filing your quarterlys, or you did not expect that 58K in bonus/capital gain last year.AZGrizFan wrote:
Oh, well if you say so then I'll just sit down, shut the fuck up and quietly write my check to the government for an additional $28,000 in taxes.
well wedgie beat me to the math joke...AZGrizFan wrote:Oh, well if you say so then I'll just sit down, shut the fuck up and quietly write my check to the government for an additional $28,000 in taxes.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
yeah - i've been to Phoenix - you're rich if you make that kind of bank in PHX
(LA? Manhattan? Chicago Loop? San Francisco? - there you're just doing pretty damn well)
Ivytalk wrote:TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
it's more than us real people make in 5 years... now back to your escalade and complain that 1077 make it impossible to hire a good landscaper these days...
So, upper Midwest political operatives make $50K/year? Hell, cheap at twice the price!
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:well wedgie beat me to the math joke...AZGrizFan wrote:
Oh, well if you say so then I'll just sit down, shut the fuck up and quietly write my check to the government for an additional $28,000 in taxes.
otoh - considering your tax increase was more than the annual income of 50% of American workers - I am unmoved by your teenage-girl-level eye-rolling. I guess the third house or second vacation to Mexico will have to wait a few months... pity that.
That's downright uncharitable, Albert.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
well wedgie beat me to the math joke...
otoh - considering your tax increase was more than the annual income of 50% of American workers - I am unmoved by your teenage-girl-level eye-rolling. I guess the third house or second vacation to Mexico will have to wait a few months... pity that.
If he wants to have 3 or 4 houses its none of your **** business. Where you guys get this mentality I really would like to know, because it needs to be exterminated from this country ASAP.
If you dont like the way it is make more money and STFU.
So, are you looking for sympathy? Like only TTBF and those similarly situated deserve to make policy in this country because they make a financial sacrifice and are so darned public-spirited?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:good operatives who work boots-on-the-ground on campaigns make 50/85k in an election yearIvytalk wrote:
So, upper Midwest political operatives make $50K/year? Hell, cheap at twice the price!
many of us are then unemployed for 6 months or more after the campaign - most operatives (junior staffers and below) are lucky to clear 25k/cycle
you don't get in to this gig for the money - most of us could make a HELL of a lot more in the private sector
2010 was my best year ever - I cleared 50k in earnings by a whisker.
not looking for anything of the sort - the guy asked how much i made to do what i do and i responded.Ivytalk wrote:So, are you looking for sympathy? Like only TTBF and those similarly situated deserve to make policy in this country because they make a financial sacrifice and are so darned public-spirited?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
good operatives who work boots-on-the-ground on campaigns make 50/85k in an election year
many of us are then unemployed for 6 months or more after the campaign - most operatives (junior staffers and below) are lucky to clear 25k/cycle
you don't get in to this gig for the money - most of us could make a HELL of a lot more in the private sector
2010 was my best year ever - I cleared 50k in earnings by a whisker.
So, you're one of those 47% who get all their tax money back?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:not looking for anything of the sort - the guy asked how much i made to do what i do and i responded.Ivytalk wrote:
So, are you looking for sympathy? Like only TTBF and those similarly situated deserve to make policy in this country because they make a financial sacrifice and are so darned public-spirited?
nope. I got a refund - but not nearly what i paid in... (even though I own a home)AZGrizFan wrote:So, you're one of those 47% who get all their tax money back?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
not looking for anything of the sort - the guy asked how much i made to do what i do and i responded.
Please.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:nope. I got a refund - but not nearly what i paid in... (even though I own a home)AZGrizFan wrote:
So, you're one of those 47% who get all their tax money back?
considering how much less than you I earned... of course it was less than you paid in.AZGrizFan wrote:Please.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
nope. I got a refund - but not nearly what i paid in... (even though I own a home)
Not nearly what I paid in.
How much did you pay in....$5,000?
What was your net effective tax rate?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:considering how much less than you I earned... of course it was less than you paid in.AZGrizFan wrote:
Please.
Not nearly what I paid in.
How much did you pay in....$5,000?
and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a fuck ton of money...AZGrizFan wrote:What was your net effective tax rate?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
considering how much less than you I earned... of course it was less than you paid in.
AFTER deductions (which didn't amount to a pot to piss in, as they're all conveniently phased out the more you make, ANOTHER disincentive to work hard), my NETR was 22.83%. Do I use 4-6x the services you do? I think not.
You gotta feel for the wealthy these days....AZGrizFan wrote:What was your net effective tax rate?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
considering how much less than you I earned... of course it was less than you paid in.
AFTER deductions (which didn't amount to a pot to piss in, as they're all conveniently phased out the more you make, ANOTHER disincentive to work hard), my NETR was 22.83%. Do I use 4-6x the services you do? I think not.
Interesting perspective. Completely fucking WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the fuck out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard fucking work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a fuck ton of money...AZGrizFan wrote:
What was your net effective tax rate?
AFTER deductions (which didn't amount to a pot to piss in, as they're all conveniently phased out the more you make, ANOTHER disincentive to work hard), my NETR was 22.83%. Do I use 4-6x the services you do? I think not.
it's amazing for all this disincentive conks claim exists in our tax code... people still manage to make money, grow wealth, prosper... you might be inclined to think... for all their bleating, that they were hurting... or completely full of shit.
Takes a lot of money to keep two, maybe three, mid-east wars alive.AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting perspective. Completely **** WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the **** out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard **** work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a **** ton of money...
it's amazing for all this disincentive conks claim exists in our tax code... people still manage to make money, grow wealth, prosper... you might be inclined to think... for all their bleating, that they were hurting... or completely full of ****.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the **** poster child for it.
Try scraping by on 125K with twins in college.AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting perspective. Completely **** WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the **** out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard **** work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a **** ton of money...
it's amazing for all this disincentive conks claim exists in our tax code... people still manage to make money, grow wealth, prosper... you might be inclined to think... for all their bleating, that they were hurting... or completely full of ****.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the **** poster child for it.
AZGrizFan wrote:What was your net effective tax rate?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
considering how much less than you I earned... of course it was less than you paid in.
AFTER deductions (which didn't amount to a pot to piss in, as they're all conveniently phased out the more you make, ANOTHER disincentive to work hard), my NETR was 22.83%. Do I use 4-6x the services you do? I think not.
I don't neccessearily think you're the rich who's taxes need to be raised. But I'm sure it's occurred to you that perhaps you're ability to make said income is at least a little tied to the overall success of the system and government spending that exists. In other words, it's more than just paying for the streets you drive on.AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting perspective. Completely fucking WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the fuck out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard fucking work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a fuck ton of money...
it's amazing for all this disincentive conks claim exists in our tax code... people still manage to make money, grow wealth, prosper... you might be inclined to think... for all their bleating, that they were hurting... or completely full of shit.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the fucking poster child for it.
except that for all your griping - it's not like you're going to go off and work at an in-and-out burger because "really with taxes it's no different, so fuck it"AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting perspective. Completely fucking WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the fuck out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard fucking work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and yet... you aren't disincentivized... you still work and make money... and make money... and make money... and well... make a fuck ton of money...
it's amazing for all this disincentive conks claim exists in our tax code... people still manage to make money, grow wealth, prosper... you might be inclined to think... for all their bleating, that they were hurting... or completely full of shit.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the fucking poster child for it.
Newsflash: most of those types gettin' gov't subsidies are donk voters.kalm wrote:I don't neccessearily think you're the rich who's taxes need to be raised. But I'm sure it's occurred to you that perhaps you're ability to make said income is at least a little tied to the overall success of the system and government spending that exists. In other words, it's more than just paying for the streets you drive on.AZGrizFan wrote:
Interesting perspective. Completely fucking WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the fuck out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard fucking work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the fucking poster child for it.
For example (and forgive me cause I've probably used this story before) but I get a kick out of the conk letters to the local paper and the conk campaign signs in the farm fields as I drive through Eastern Washington. These folks are, like you, smaller government types who get paid to not grow crops, live on a county maintained road in the middle of nowhere, who ship price and crop insurance subsidized wheat down the Snake and Columbia Rivers made navigable by the federal hydro projects and the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm not saying they or you don't deserve your income, but it's sometimes ok to admit you're not quite the self-reliant Daniel Boone types you think you are.
Unappreciative conk bastards.
We shall see. As i said, this is my first year in this predicament.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:except that for all your griping - it's not like you're going to go off and work at an in-and-out burger because "really with taxes it's no different, so fuck it"AZGrizFan wrote:
Interesting perspective. Completely fucking WRONG, but interesting nonetheless. This was the first year I was in this scenario (well, second, if you count the distribution I took from my retirement plan in 2009 on which they taxed the fuck out of--stupid move, I know, but I was desperate at the time), so I am new to the "disincentive" family. But yes, I am DEFINITELY disincented to work harder to give MORE of my money to a government that wouldn't know how to spend it wisely if they tried. And I've got news for you, After taxes, $250,000 ain't what it seems like. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir and just 10 years ago I made exactly what you made (not sure how old you are) so I've been in your shoes. But it's amazing, the more you make, the more you realize it's hard fucking work making money and you'd sure like to keep more of it. But the more you make, they more they take.
I drive A car, live in A house (and only have ONE, not 3-4 as you donk apologists seem to think every "rich" person has), eat 3 meals a day, usually something like spaghetti, hamburgers, pasta, etc...no caviar, no lobster, none of the "rich" food....yet I pay more than 5 x (from a percentage standpoint) of MY income to drive on the SAME roads, having the SAME impact. Why is that, in any warped sense of donk standards, considered "FAIR"?
Classic disincentive theory. And you're the fucking poster child for it.
the disincentive you claim exists... doesn't exist - because people are still earning money, still trying to make more - if taxation was such a disincentive as you claim... this wouldn't be happening.
To use my example, E. WA is overwhelmingly conk. Corporate welfare and subsidies is > social welfare. Conks are just as good about sucking at the govmint teat. They talk a better game though.AZGrizFan wrote:Newsflash: most of those types gettin' gov't subsidies are donk voters.kalm wrote:
I don't neccessearily think you're the rich who's taxes need to be raised. But I'm sure it's occurred to you that perhaps you're ability to make said income is at least a little tied to the overall success of the system and government spending that exists. In other words, it's more than just paying for the streets you drive on.
For example (and forgive me cause I've probably used this story before) but I get a kick out of the conk letters to the local paper and the conk campaign signs in the farm fields as I drive through Eastern Washington. These folks are, like you, smaller government types who get paid to not grow crops, live on a county maintained road in the middle of nowhere, who ship price and crop insurance subsidized wheat down the Snake and Columbia Rivers made navigable by the federal hydro projects and the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm not saying they or you don't deserve your income, but it's sometimes ok to admit you're not quite the self-reliant Daniel Boone types you think you are.
Unappreciative conk bastards.