Lube Recommendations

[guido911]

Ahhhhhh..... poor little Guido...had to pay his 16% tax today!!

Ahhhhh......

How in the hell would you know what percentage I paid? And by the way, you are not even close smart guy. I would have loved to pay a measly 16%.

[Red Arrow]

Heironymousapsparagus,   (You should have chosen something easier to spell)

I re-read the article.  The main take that I get from it is that the economic classes are not static.  I can relate to the million $ asset producing a weenie income since I don't have a $million in savings and don't have a retirement program like my parents did/do.  (Dad is gone, mom is still with us.)  Defining income as per household without understanding what a household is can be deceptive.  I don't really believe the author is saying that the rich are not better off than the average person.  The encouraging thing to me is that economic mobility still exists.

The author, Steven R. Cunningham appears to have reasonable credentials. That is unless you believe that any conservative opinion is FUBAR.

[Cats Cats Cats]

How in the hell would you know what percentage I paid? And by the way, you are not even close smart guy. I would have loved to pay a measly 16%.

Yeah.  Not even Warren Buffett pays 16%.  Buffett pays 17.7% (2007) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html  Obviously, Guido makes more than Buffett so he pays a higher tax rate.

[guido911]

Yeah.  Not even Warren Buffett pays 16%.  Buffett pays 17.7% (2007) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html  Obviously, Guido makes more than Buffett so he pays a higher tax rate.

Did you even bother reading your own link? Here's a passage for you:

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Did you even bother reading your own link? Here's a passage for you:

Guido, The rich are taxed too much.  We are penalizing people like Buffet for being successful.  Every day republican position : Please cut all the taxes (And cut the top at a much higher rate than the lower brackets, they already pay too much.)  They are already paying more than their fair share.  Obviously somebody that makes at least 47 times your income would be paying a higher percentage than you.  As we have a progressive tax system that penalizes the rich at a higher rate than the middle or upper middle class..  Otherwise it would mean that we need to raise the taxes on the upper brackets (I say we make new brackets over a few million a year) and lower the middle brackets (25-30%).

[Conan71]

And here is Cunningham's CV if you are interested.
http://web.uconn.edu/cunningham/vita-long-current.pdf

I'll take Cunningham's creds over your's when it comes to economic analysis any day.

Just curious why Wevus hasn't dropped in to explain how Cunningham has it all wrong.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Cunningham seems to be more than adequately competent.  RA found the gist of part of what I was getting at.  The part of the reality of how the richest are definitely NOT hurting worse than the poorest.

And the link I provided shows some graphs that even the most elementary intellect can understand about the differences between reality and what people 'think' is reality.  The reality is that those making $1 million or more a year are making more at a greater rate than the poor.  The gap IS indeed growing and as they say, is no longer a gap, it is a chasm.  (Think Grand Canyon for those of you who could afford to go see it). 

The poor are getting poorer.  At an accelerating rate.  See the chart labeled "Change in Share of Income".

Even 19 of the top 20% are just barely holding their own.  Can't understand why some many of them are so into the policies of the RWRE to the absolute detriment of their own self interest.  If we could just go back to 1979, the vast majority of people would be better off, with that one teeny, tiny little sliver of "you know who".  Ah,...nostalgia...what a wonderfully futile endeavor.


As far as making more means you get to pay more taxes, well think again.  The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch a couple years ago made $125 million.  And his base salary was about $800,000, with the rest going to ISO (incentive stock options).  That means his total effective rate was barely over 15%.  This has been explained here.  By me.   Several times.  Again, for the RWRE - he paid smaller percentage making over twice as much as Warren Buffet.

Again,...and again....and again.... this is exactly why Warren Buffet.  And Bill Gates.  And John Bogle.  All three have publicly talked about the gross - no, not just gross, but grotesque - unfairness of the Bush tax cuts.  (Probably why even Donald Trump says Bush was the worst President in the history of the country.   Only took him a decade to realize what so many knew after about, oh, 15 minutes.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Red,
You said;

I re-read the article.  The main take that I get from it is that the economic classes are not static.  I can relate to the million $ asset producing a weenie income since I don't have a $million in savings and don't have a retirement program like my parents did/do.  (Dad is gone, mom is still with us.)  Defining income as per household without understanding what a household is can be deceptive.  I don't really believe the author is saying that the rich are not better off than the average person.  The encouraging thing to me is that economic mobility still exists.


This is something I have touched on here and in my personal life to friends/family.  Reagan was the lead in destroying the pension system in this country.  Replacing it with the 401K.  The absolute worst catastrophe to befall the American workers in an extremely LONG time!  The premise is that you remove the pension from professional money managers and put it in the hands of the people themselves.  Right.  Especially since SOOOOO many of us are trained as professional money managers ALONG WITH whatever training our chosen career path has required. 

Basically, you, me and a whole lot of people just like us are really screwed (yeah, I'm a 20%er).  But, hey, the 1%ers got their million plus income at 16%, so at least we got the important stuff right, huh?

That is also why so many people going into retirement today are a train wreck just waiting to happen.  Even our kids and grandkids are in such deep caca, they can't even begin to comprehend.  Couple that with what the last 30 years of Republican debt/spend policy has done to our fiscal situation.  This is the house of cards that is starting to collapse.

From Millionaire Money habits, who got it from Money Magazine - the catastrophe of the 401k.

http://www.mmhabits.com/how-much-is-your-401k-worth/

$22,000 average in 2006.  But since the economy has done such a stellar job in the intervening, you know that has got to be just HUGE now, right??  (LOL!!!)

28% of those eligible don't even sign up (most probably because they are the ones making LESS than $31,000 per year - or so confused by the mess they just sit out completely.)  Yeah, this is working out well. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ok, Guido, let's go with the premise that you are in the 35%+ bracket total with the rest of us.  That means you are under about $250,000 per year.  You have NO incentive stock option.  And have a W-2 that reflects all of your income.

Then WHY and HOW could you possibly be such an ardent defender of the policies that are hurting YOU so much at the same time they are benefiting the 1%ers so magnificently??


Or, possibly you are in that rare category of people who makes the millions, but does not take advantage of all the legal tax breaks allowed under the law.  In which case, for that million dollar a year income, you actually DO pay about $350,000 per year in taxes.  (Oh, wait, except for the 14% of social security taxes that you avoid over the first 100,000 or so - I will exempt that from this discussion.)

If you say you are paying that $350,000+ taxes per million income, I will believe you (even if you are a lawyer! - insert just a little Snarky moment here).  I will be VERY pleasantly surprised that you are a person of such integrity and loyalty to our country and its well being, that you would not take advantage of such a blatantly unfair tax system - that you truly, deep down believe in the principal of equal treatment under the law, even the tax law, and are willing to stand on that principal, even to your detriment.  I will take it as an article of faith that you are willing to share the same pain as your lesser paid contemporaries are inflicted with.  And I will congratulate you and never make a derogatory direct comment regarding your 1% position again.  Is that what you are saying??

[heironymouspasparagus]

RA,
It's Heironymous P Asparagus.  Painter.  Tasty green vegetable treat.

Middle initial has absolutely no point whatsoever.  Except that is kind of sounded like it fit.

[Red Arrow]

RA,
It's Heironymous P Asparagus.  Painter.  Tasty green vegetable treat.
Middle initial has absolutely no point whatsoever.  Except that is kind of sounded like it fit.

Again I am in a minority, I never acquired a taste for asparagus.
P can stand for pee.  Asparagus makes your pee stronger/more yellow. At least that is what my dad told me as a kid to try to get me to eat asparagus.  Didn't work.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Cool!! Mind if I use that??

I hated asparagus until well into middle age, then one day, it was like a switch clicked and I saw some with a nice little cheese sauce, and it actually looked good!  I tried it and liked it.  Still do NOT appreciate the smell one little bit.  Kind of ugly.

[Red Arrow]

H.P. Asparagus,

Let's start with the good old days of 1979 and shortly thereafter.  I remember it well.  I was getting nearly 13% on my CD.  It didn't matter much because inflation was double digit.  My first car loan was 13% at the Credit Union.  House mortgages were double digit.

My dad's retirement wasn't free.  He had to contribute 10% of his salary to get what he got.  Benefits were based on contributions, both his and the company's.  Dad was forced into early retirement at age 58.  He didn't get the retirement he was promised when he started working for that company 35 years earlier.  If he and mom had died before they got any of it, the money would have gone to vapor.   Kind of like the social security my employer and I are paying since I don't have any dependents.  There were also vesting considerations.  When I started work (after the Navy and TU) my employer had a contributing and non-contributing retirement plan.  The non-contributing plan would have provided beer money but that's about all. People today who will not/ cannot contribute to a 401K now would probably not have a wonderful retirement under the old plans either.  I think my Grandfather got something less than $100/month after retiring from his union tool and die maker job in the early 60s. Many of those so-called professionally handled retirement plans are now being paid by the government pension guarantee. The recipients don't always get what the original plan promised. We also know that there are more that are not fiscally sound.  


If the government took everything the top 1% made above say $1,000,000., how much better off would YOU be?  I think not as much as you think.  Even 15% tax on $1,000,000. is more than you can get out of me.  (Blood/turnip thing)

[Red Arrow]

Cool!! Mind if I use that??

Go ahead.