TIME'S RUNNING OUT

[StrutEggStealer]

What I'm saying is, why can't it be the same tax for everyone? I don't see that the rich should be picked out and made to pay more, it's not fair.
Okay, I'm not rich, but I know that if I ever do get rich, I'm sure as heck NOT going to want to pay more for taxes just because 'I'm rich'. I would have worked hard for that money, and I'm not gonna want it to disappear within the blink of an eye just because 'I'm rich'.
Who says they don't contribute to society?
I don't agree that middle and lower classes have to pay more, with money they don't have, but it's not fair to make the rich pay more. So equality is an issue here... that's all I'm saying.
Nowhere did I say that the poor and the middle class aren't the victims. I'm borderline poverty here, and if my dad 'forgets' to pay the child support, my family and I are screwed!

[Jrd89]

StrutEggStealer: To answer your question, yes, one option I could do is lease the Camaro. Remember I am still a ways away from getting the car.

(Strut, I'm still thinking of a 2012, because of it having a cd player. I can't listen to my cd's in a '13 because they re-designed the radios that year to some weird digital-only thing.  <_<

and hey! Who said that the Camaro must be BRAND new?" No, it certainly DOESN'T have to be brand new at all. It can be a couple of years old still in flawless, excellent condition. That works just as good.. like an '11 or a '12. those 2 years are great, too.

I need one that'll play my rock/Pink Floyd cd's, and a used 2012 would be the newest way to go for me as 2013 Camaros lack cd players.

Remember that this is NOT a rush. I'm still liking the '12 because of the whole "having a cd player in it" thing, and that it'd be the newest one, too.  As stated before.. the only difference between a '12 and '13 Camaro is the radio, and nothing else.  Preetttty stupid to get a car that looks EXACTLY the same as the previous year both inside and outside except for a new radio now, isn't it?

But yes, leasing is on my "options" table. But if I get a '13, I must remember "you can't play your cd's then, Jared. You'll have to settle for just the AM/FM/XM satellite radio only. and I don't want that.   Therefore, my newest choice is a 2012, and that's pretty freakin' awesome.  who said anything about the Camaro having to be brand new? No, it doesn't need to be a brand new Camaro, it can be a couple of years old. I'm not THAT picky! :blink:... sheesh.  Lol!

[Ptyra]

My car is from 2004 and it has a CD player in it

[Jrd89]

Guys.. it's not like i'm saying something insane like.. I NEED this brand new Camaro ZL-1 in this picture with a 580 horsepower SUPERcharged engine that goes from 0 to 60 miles per hour.. IN JUST 4 SECONDS! 8D  8D    THIS Bad-A** BOY is worth $55,000!!!  HOT DAMN!!!  THIS CAMARO ROCKS THE BLOCK! I've heard the ZL-1 Camaro's engine.. and THESE sound like MEGA EARTHQUAKE loud when these babies rev!!   *VWWAAAAAAAOOOOOMMM!!!!    VVVVVVWWWAAAAAAAOOOOOOMMMM!!!!      NOW THIS Camaro is what I call PURE, SUPER, ULTRA HOT, BLISTERING performance! 8D Check THIS out!

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/11q4/...-s-1280x782.jpg



Now THAT... is what I call... one.. HOT... muscle car to cruise around Florida in! (even though i'm sure as heck NOT going to buy or lease a $55,000 Camaro ZL-1. :blink: NO way!

I'd rather stick with the more "regular" and MUCH less expensive 2LT Camaro coupe that I like.. with the V-6 engine that's worth $30,000-$32,000. Or buy a used 2012 Camaro.

That's what i'm thinking (I'm still a fan of the ZL-1 even though it's way too expensive for me.)

Strut, I will put "leasing" as an option when I do reach that point in time when i'll be ready to get the Camaro and choose between the option of buying or just leasing. You were a great help, Strut, thanks for the support.

[DarkHououmon]

the five waltons have a combined wealth of 100 billion, no family could ever need, or even spend, that much, even if they tried.

Which is why I support the rich getting more heavily taxed. There's no reason why they need all that money. What good is that money to anyone if it just accumulates in some rich dude's house, sitting around and doing nothing?

If the rich truly want to be an important element of society, then they can pay their share. Expecting the middle class to pay for all the taxes is ludicrous. The middle class just don't earn nearly as much. It makes more economic sense to tax the much richer folks who have a lot more money to spare.

The rich can part with huge portions of their wealth and still get on just fine. Taxing them 75%, as I said, will not bankrupt them. What it will do is ease the burden from the two poorer classes and help out the economy as a whole. And the rich can still a good portion of their money. It won't be nearly as much as they used to have, but they will still have tons more money than most people and that will be more than enough to live comfortably.

If my family can live somewhat comfortably just scraping by, than a rich guy can easily do so many times over with just a portion of his wealth.

[Ptyra]

No, you don't NEED the car. You WANT the car.

[Jrd89]

Ptyra, please understand me. The car dad and I currently share is a 1995 Buick Riviera that hardly works anymore. it runs very rough, TONS of cabin noise, the car has 249,200 MILES on it! I want a nice car now. I live in Florida, I'd like a Camaro. (this isn't a Corvette.. this isn't a Ferrari, this isn't a Porsche, or Bentley, or a Rolls-Royce.)

There's LOTS of Mustangs and Camaros out on the roads here in south-eastern Florida. I see at least 5 or 6 of them on a daily basis out on the roads. I've waited 5 years to get a new car to replace the Riviera. Dad's gonna find his own car first.. we'll share that one... then i'll buy mine.

Please Ptyra, don't stop me. I've driven a rental car Camaro, dad and I went driving together with it one night, and It really helped me "get the feel" of driving the car.

I drove it a few weeks ago. Dad rented to go on a trip to a soccer game my sister had to head over to Tampa (because their '07 Mercedes ML-350's electronic transmission wasn't shifting through the gears properly sometimes, and dad needed a rental car to get him and mom over to Tampa that wouldn't have any problems with it. The '95 Buick Riviera, a nearly 18 year old car with 249,200 miles on it, A VERY noisy suspension, rough idle, LOUD grinding noise in the engine.. like a blender (when you have it under 1,500 RPM's on the tachometer, it MAKES A VERY loud grinding noise. My dad thinks that it's the engine's flywheel going bad again in it..and it JUST got the flywheel fixed on it 3 years ago. O_O

The Riviera is too worn down and beat up to go on a cross-state trip. O_O It's too risky.. it is strictly "work wheels" for dad and I to share right now.  When dad gets the money, he'll get a new car he and I will share, then, when I get my money back from them, i'll see if I can get myself my own *independent! yes! ^_^ my own INDEPENDENT* new car. (not necessarily BRAND new.... remember. )  

But that Riviera is on its last legs, Ptyra. Really. it is an embarassment to drive in down here. I feel like a poor trailer trash dirt-bag hillbilly driving that piece of s**t around, dad agrees too, that it is a piece of s**t.. it is strictly there to get him and I to work and back home. (Did I mention that it has an oil leak and that we paralell park it in the street, not in our driveway, because we don't want little puddles of oil drippings on our driveway, and that the Horn WILL NOT blow because of an electrical wiring problem it had in the steering wheel earlier this year and dad disconnected the wire to avoid un-intentional horn blowing.

The car is not for showing off to/or sporting around in by any means.  It's just used to get me and dad to our jobs until dad can afford to get himself a new car. (and whatever car he finds will be his choice. No suggestions please. I believe he saw an ad for a black '07 Ford Mustang somewhere if I remember right. if you really want to know. )

If you want to know our income numbers, Ptyra.. this year, my dad earned $115,000 at his job at the nuclear power plant, and I earned over $12,000 at my job bagging/bringing in carts/cleaning at the grocery store. (compared to $5,309 last year... remembering that I had NO job from January through May of last year.)

Sorry that my dad has a high income and that it's more than what your family may have made.

[Ptyra]

My car makes a lot of noise too...hence why I named it "Squeaks". Maybe you're right about 1995, but the cars my family has are all from the early 2000's.
Yeah, you could use a new car, but not one fresh out of the factory! A car from 2004 might do you fine

And why are you making assumptions about how much money my family makes?

[Jrd89]

>_< I don't know Ptyra. It's something I never should have even brought up. >_<

No it doesn't have to be a new 2013. My dad may have been slightly..."judgemental" but hey, my parents understand "you buy what you can afford" and when there are times where they see a person in a cruddy crap car.. mom says.. "well, maybe that's all they can afford right now." I know.. a car is ok if it's in great working order and if you can afford it.

[Ptyra]

There are plenty of cars that you can get used that aren't crap. I think you're just looking at some pretty bad dealers

[Malte279]

What I'm saying is, why can't it be the same tax for everyone? I don't see that the rich should be picked out and made to pay more, it's not fair.
Okay, I'm not rich, but I know that if I ever do get rich, I'm sure as heck NOT going to want to pay more for taxes just because 'I'm rich'. I would have worked hard for that money, and I'm not gonna want it to disappear within the blink of an eye just because 'I'm rich'.

No, it would be not fair to society as a whole if those of excessive wealth (excessive as in "having more money stored than they will ever need for a comfortable life") are taxed the same rate as those who need to turn every dime thrice before spending it.
Personally I really don't see how the CEO who earns millions per month is working so much more than the one who works eight or ten hours a day in that CEOs plants on the production lines to justify the extreme overpayment of many CEOs. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should all get the same (that indeed would be unjust for giving no credit to additional education required for and additional responsibility required in many white collar jobs), but these days there are many CEOs getting (not "earning" as in rightfully deserving) hundreds of times the money they pay to their workers. And in spite of this we see many CEOs, high ranking bankers etc. not living up to their tasks in terms of responsibility towards the society which made their economic success possible. Out of sheer greed productive plants are being closed down and "outsourced" because slavelabor-like conditions in other countries make it possible to make for example 110 million rather than 100 million in profits there. It doesn't matter than to the CEOs that because of this thousands of workers loose their jobs, end up totally uprooted and will in some cases not be able to land on their feet again. It is the speculations of many with too much money that create the economic bubbles that have been doing so much damage to the global economy in recent years. In spite of all this CEOs who totally f**** up and ruin a company all too often get "compensations" when they are then replaced with somebody else. Compensations which are often higher than the lifetime earnings of many of their workers.
Excessive wealth is a threat not only to the economy (as Nick rightfully pointed out it harms the economy if too much money "sits" rather than circulates as it is supposed to) but even to democracy. Wealth rather than competence is the precondition to hold political office these days. Someone who is not a multimillionaire has little chance to be elected for any high office (or for his or her canidacy even being noticed). With a government thus set up off millionaires for a very long time already it is hardly a surprise that these governments (not talking of the US only) would pass hardly any legislation to allow for greater financial contributions of those who have in excess. Lobbyism is another symptom of the greed that has made politics purchasable to some degree. Ever more governments are drifiting towards total plutocracy (rule of the rich) which oftentimes does not harmonize with the idea of democracy (rule of the people as a whole).
The fortunes of some have reached really excessive, even perverse amounts. Billions and billions in the hand of a single person? There is absolutely nothing natural about it and a single person cannot be so "industrious" as to have actually "earned" that money. Those who life in such excess ought at least to be willing to allow for their fortunes to be taxed in such a way that they contribute what they can without any loss other than somewhat smaller numbers on their accounts of "sitting money". In all too many cases the money of rich people has not been earned by their hard work, their intelligence, or their dilligence, but many of them have just earned money from their ancestors and never ever had to worry about money no matter what they did or did not and would get high paid offices not by competence but by inheritence and a name.
Oftentimes there are false claims about taxation rates about. For example example especially in election times people often claim that if you are taxed higher from a certain income in you may not want to work so hard anymore since the tax would make you end up with less money if you earn more. This claim is total BS however and just reveals that those who propagate it are unfamiliar with the tax system in the US. If in a hypothetical example a tax rate of 30% is imposed for income between $50 000 and $100 000 and a tax rate of 50% abovue 100 000 the 50% would be imposed only on the money in excess of $100 000. Someone who earned $110 000 would still have to pay only 30% for the first $100 000 and only for the $10 000 in excess the 50% would have to be paid so there is no way to earn more but end up with less because of taxes.
Personally I think it would be a sensible thing to allow for CEOs to be paid a maximum wage based on the wages of their lowest paid workers. For example a CEO may only earn 25 times as much as his lowest paid blue collar worker (that is 25 times the amount of money they expect someone else to life from!). In that case the CEO would have a very personal interest to make sure that the own workers share in the profits of the company and he or she would reconsider twice before "outsourcing" to a country where wages are so low that it would require a dire cut in the wages of the CEO as well.

[landbeforetimelover]

I am a STRONG supporter of taxing the rich 90% or more on certain dollar amounts (though 80 million is ridiculous).  It should be like 5 or 10 million.  Maybe then these bastards will stop fucking everyone over for a dollar.  I'm SICK AND TIRED of spending a shitload of money on things then finding out their made like CRAP.

Example, I was about to purchase a $4,000 Nikon DSLR camera (for business purposes), but then after reading thousands of reviews of people that are having problem with oil splatters behind the lens, I decided not to buy it.  There's no reason why on a $4,000 camera there should be problems like that.  The problem is they put a cheap shit part in there and over oiled it to make it work.  But the oil will splatter on the back of the camera glass, making you have to disassemble the entire camera in order to clean it all the time.  The camera is NOT user serviceable (it has over 2,000 screws) and needs to be totally taken apart in order to clean it.

The worst part?  The suspected part would only cost $1.22 to make properly.  So for $1.22, they're going to fuck everyone that buys their cameras.  No thanks!  If they didn't get to keep all that money, they wouldn't have done this.  Greedy bastards.

[DarkHououmon]

What personally makes me sick is how many of the people who are rich don't work as hard as those who aren't. I'm not saying their job isn't important, but does a CEO who just sits around and gives orders really more deserving of millions of dollars per month than the man who works his butt off cleaning the sewers, schools, garbage, etc? Or the woman who works 5 days a week trying her hardest to educate the next generation, teaching them about science, math, english, etc?

My dad claims that many people who are rich claim that they are rich because they are "very talented", but in truth there are many more people who work much harder than these rich folks who get scrap for their work, and he sees that as completely unfair. And I personally agree with him.

The way I see it, the harder you work, the more money you should get. But sadly that's not the way this society works.

[StrutEggStealer]

 

Excessive wealth is a threat not only to the economy (as Nick rightfully pointed out it harms the economy if too much money "sits" rather than circulates as it is supposed to) but even to democracy.

Just like how we are over sixteen trillion dollars in debt (it rose two trillion dollars in the time it took my spring semester to start and then finish) I don't see how the rich putting in more money will help as we will just ship its way out to China along with the rest of our money

Dang the Federal Bank!! The dollar is losing its value because there is nothing behind it. The Fed just prints out more and more bills...

No, it would be not fair to society as a whole if those of excessive wealth (excessive as in "having more money stored than they will ever need for a comfortable life") are taxed the same rate as those who need to turn every dime thrice before spending it.

Then again, there are those who have worked hard to obtain their wealth, and are treated as a majority who s*** and should have to pay more because they are 'snobby and rich'.

Believe me, I'm all for getting our country out of debt, but I don't see how we will if the majority of the money we pay is just added to the national average and not used to bring our debt down... So, I don't see how it will help us. *shrug*

[Nick22]

most of that 16 trllion strut is to ourselves- 11 trillion to be precise, ss pensions and other liabilities. most of that 16 trillion can be lasid at the republicans feet, especially Bush 43. bush cut taxes repeatedly, even during wartime, which is stupid, because wartime is precisely when you need to gather as much money as you can to pay for it.  every country has debt, but we are in better shape then most, first because we're larger than everyone elsse in terms of economy so running a 300 billion defecit isnt a big deal for us but it would be for greece.  taxes are at the lowest rate they have since the 1950s in terms of what uncle sam brings in 15%. normally the fede takes in 18-21. so that percentage needs to go up. defecit spendng during bad times helps keep people working until things get better, then you pay off what you spent during the bad times. we are seeing the concebntration of wealth by the richest fifth of this country. there are two kinds of wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. which do you think has happening in the country since Reagan? you get three guesses, the first two dont count.  and becuse  what people actually pay - the 'effective rate' is always much lower than the rate on the books, to claim that we are unfairly taxes or taxed too much, is frankly BS. rates need to go up, we probably need 3 more rates, for people making a millon, people making 50 milion and anyone making 100 milion+. the Forbes 400- that is the 400 richest people in America earned an average of 202 million last year, but because most of them make money via capital gains, their rate is justr 15%

[StrutEggStealer]

But we are still in debt, no matter if it is to ourselves. With our government spending more than it can produce - another reason why the Fed gets on my nerves - what will happen next? I know we are a large country, so what happened to Greece probably won't happen to us, but how can we be sure? What will happen if we are asked to repay the debt and have no money behind it? What if paper money is devalued. What will we pay with then? Gold?  
Are we in the Economical downturn, where we will continue to decline, or the trough, where the only other way is up? What a time to blank on the economics classes I took... Keynes! Aggregate supply and demand! Imports! Exports! Fiscal Cliffs!

[Nick22]

i'm in favor of keynesian economics which deals with countercyclical spending. in other words, spending when times are bad, save when times are good. we will nit be asked to pay back all 16 trillon, debt doesnt work that way. the government always pays its bills,the 14th amendment says the full faith and credit of the us shall not be questioned. at the time it was passed there was talk about repudiating civil war debt, on the part of the union.bthe 14th amendment said, no, all debt on the part of us is too be honored. iour borrowing costs right now are vey low, and we are the reserve curency of the world, there is no safer place to put your money, than the us government. look around. europe is a mess, japan is in decline and china is slowing down. thee is no other country or region that is doing appreciably beter than we are.  The Us usually rund defecits, as a structural matter, but as long as they are a manageable amount, its fine. the defecits over the last few years are a result of the Bush tax cuts, the downturn. ad the wars. wity the tax cuts going to expire, our financial situation is going to get a lot better, after some short term pain..

[Jrd89]

btw, here's a guy getting a brand new Camaro "ZL-1" (that's the high-performance one with a 580-horsepower engine) delivered BRAND new and driven off of the car carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DalR5ds1nw ( the video shows a delivery of a brand new Camaro ZL-1 to a dealership off of a car carrier)

 A ZL-1 brand new, is worth $55,000 as I said before. A new 2LT with the RS package is about $32,000. *but remember that I'm not gonna buy "brand" new guys.


I'd also pick a '12 over a '13 because of it's cd player and want to listen to my cds in a car still. I will not leave my cd's and I don't need a "new" car that DOESN'T have a cd player in the radio. I'm NOT gonna buy some stupid I-pod.

Heck, I do not even NEED an ipod. And I sure as heck am not about to go spend a giant crap load of money converting all my cd's to digital downloads onto an i-pod. (I had to have spent a couple hundred dollars all together for my Pink Floyd cd's alone. I SURE as heck aren't throwing my cd's in the trash and buying digital downloads for an i-pod (which I would ALSO have to buy on top of that..which I sure as heck won't.)  I will not leave my cd's.. HECK they're still being made/produced today. They're certainly not "dead" by any means. I'm not gonna convert guys. I've heard about the worse sound quality that an "ipod" version of a song has over a cd. I've also heard the "digital" version sucks even more compared to an original vinyl/record/lp version of an album.

[landbeforetimelover]

^It doesn't matter that it's not "Brand New."  The fact of the matter is, your current level of income is incompatible with buying a 2010 car.  If you were making $80k+ per year (preferably more), then a 2010 car wouldn't be too much of a stretch.  But blowing every cent you have on a car just because you want it is honestly a really stupid move when you could easily live with something a LOT more affordable.  If you keep up this behavior, you're going to be poor all your life.  I'm sorry to be blunt, but someone has to tell you the truth.

And I know there are tons of people out there that make $25k a year and are buying 2 year old cars.  Just because others are doing it doesn't make it a smart thing to do.  You have to be smarter than all the dumbasses around you if you want to survive and actually life the life you want to live.  Feel free to do whatever you want.  It's your life and you have to live it the way you see fit.  Just keep in mind that the decisions you make shape the rest of your life.  You're young now and I know it seems that you've got a loooooong way to go.  But in reality it comes a LOT faster than you'd think.  And the decisions you make now WILL affect you in the not-so-distant future.

[Ptyra]

^


Be a dear and point a little more up please, Doctor

But yeah, it's like I've been saying. If you're worried about the economy and fiscal cliff, DO NOT buy a brand spanking new car! It's a REALLY dumb move! You keep complaining about how your life is "ruined", but by buying that car, you're only setting yourself up for falling even lower. If you want to go up in life, make better choices. And that includes NOT getting a car under two years old.

As for the CD player, they've been making cars that way since at least 2001. Whe have an Oldsmobile stilloette that has both CD and tape players...and a VHS player (and that's how you know your van is old ). My car from 2004 has a CD player. Trust me, any car you get after the 2002 mark (at least) will have a CD player.

I feel a little hypocritical because I'm getting a brand new sewing machine for Christmas, but that's a bit different :/