Oh God. They drilled the no drugs and alcohol message into me before I even had a chance to protest. Now it's like that little voice inside of me IS MY OWN voice...
<strong>Oh God. They drilled the no drugs and alcohol message into me before I even had a chance to protest. Now it's like that little voice inside of me IS MY OWN voice...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Geez, I leave for one night, and this darn topic goes to 2 pages??? Should have known it all came from a downward spiral into political parties. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Honestly, I was just pissed that winning 280 mil could go to 90-something in an eyeblink. Nowhere had I expected people would take a Republican vs. Democrat spin on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you are only writing from one point of view. You keep referring to the wife that wants the nice car and house. Could it be that this is the problem?
Your model assumes two things:
1. That someone will buy everything in one year instead of twenty
2. That women are golddiggers and it is a man's responsibility to feed that.
Perhaps that is your life, but it is hardly a realistic blueprint of human behavior. I get the feeling that your world-view has been shaped by too many years in suburban America.
Let me just add two real world examples of women that demonstrate the diversity of lifestyles:
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. Does not own a car (this is not NY). Lives in a tiny ~$150k condo. Most expensive purchase this year: still digital camera. Probably has not seen a mall in a year or two. No cable. Thinking about buying a moped, but has been talking about it for a year and not done it.
My ladyfriend- will be CFO at her company by end of 2003. Makes probably 2 or 3 times as much as me right now. Drives a 1990 lincoln she is borrowing from her parents, who she lives with right now. Talks about buying a condo, but really doesn't have any important reason to. Most expensive individual purchase this year (excluding her multiple vacations)? probably the norelco spectra she bought me for christmas.
Why aren't they spending their money on junk? Because it is useless and more trouble than it's worth. They are not looking for anyone's approval so they don't need status symbols.
There are billions of people in the world with interests other than clothes and status symbols. I feel sorry for you that you are so shallow you don't realize this.
They also think about the future (neither have children). Neither of their husbands will have to work a shitty job. They can do what they want. It's all about giving yourself options in the future.
I can think of other women, as well. My brother's (not by blood) mother. President of a very large organization. Finally got rid of her 15 year old toyota for a new one. Probably the most she has ever spent on a single item. Spends her money on culture and travel. My aunt. Head of the most advanced children's hospital (still being built). Has appeared on Oprah numerous times because of her work. No car. maybe a $400,000 condo, if that. Nothing expensive in her house. Her single indulgence is her fur coat, which she wears because she says nothing beats fur for warmth.
These are all people that could easily purchase multi-million dollar homes. It would actually seem to make more sense if they did. But there is no reason. New large houses seperate families and tend to be poorly built. It's also a waste of money.
My mother has two other sisters worth at least a few million (in cash) each that I didn't even touch on.
Oh, and guess what. All of these women are what you could call liberals and would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant helping other people. As would I. Sorry, bud, but your view is a little too narrow to cut it.
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're just weeks late. I just talked the love of her life into moving back to Chicago (he was pissing his life away in Tampa). They've been inseperable since he got here.
I'll be happy for the difference. Finders keepers?
I agree with you, Nick, with the exception being Free Trade. Without an export market the US economy would be in the toilet and you?re all be driving Ford Taurus and Tempos.
LOL.
Yes, I drive a 1994 Golf GTI. Thought it was a better car than the 318. Plus the mechanics don?t look at you funny and with stars in their eyes when you come in for service.
<strong>Why is it "scaring" them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When has the GOP tried to take away anybody?s Social Security?
[quote]<strong>Are Republicans using scare tactics when they say Democrats are going to raise taxes, or take away their guns, etc. etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dems don?t raise taxes? They don?t try to take away your guns? Since when? Try buying a gun in D.C.
[quote]<strong>I think the implication is that old people are dumb and gullible and susceptible to scare tactics. That's bad enough in itself, but it also implies there is no substance to what Democrats say about the issue. But there is substance to it.
What did Democrats say in 2000? Gore said that Bush's plans would create problems for Social Security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Newsflash: Social Security already had a boatload of problems when Gore made that claim. And what was all that talk about a ?lockbox?? This is what you call substance? Did anybody besides Gore think that was even a vaguely serious response to the problem?
[quote]<strong>Bush accused Gore of using fuzzy math, and promised that he would not need the social security surplus to balance the budget. But that's exactly what has happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, his crystal ball failed to see the WoT although he did warn of a softening economy that nobody else saw coming.
[quote]<strong>Bush also proposed partially privatizing social security (after the tax cut and the recession and the wars this does seem to have gone away now)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hasn?t gone away. You?re just reflexively cynical about anything Bush says. Do you really want to suggest that when Daschle was running the Senate he would have worked with Bush on such a proposal? Bush also promised an education bill. He did that. He said he?d sign off on campaign finance reform. Kept that promise too. I?m not wild about the results in either of those cases but he certainly did what he said he?d do - same with his tax bill. He also promised to address prescription drugs. That looks to be at the top of next year?s agenda.
[quote]<strong>... which DOES in fact pose difficulties for current retirees because the money for privatization has to come from somewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Current retirees wouldn?t be affected by Bush?s proposal. You talk as if everyone would make the same choice if private accounts were to become available.
[quote]<strong>The fact is there ARE differences between Republicans' and Democrats' views of Social Security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. I never said otherwise. Republicans have offered a real proposal to address the problems Social Security faces. Democrats offer scare tactics.
<strong>Let me just add two real world examples of women that demonstrate the diversity of lifestyles:
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. Does not own a car (this is not NY). Lives in a tiny ~$150k condo. Most expensive purchase this year: still digital camera. Probably has not seen a mall in a year or two. No cable. Thinking about buying a moped, but has been talking about it for a year and not done it.
My ladyfriend- will be CFO at her company by end of 2003. Makes probably 2 or 3 times as much as me right now. Drives a 1990 lincoln she is borrowing from her parents, who she lives with right now. Talks about buying a condo, but really doesn't have any important reason to. Most expensive individual purchase this year (excluding her multiple vacations)? probably the norelco spectra she bought me for christmas.
Why aren't they spending their money on junk? Because it is useless and more trouble than it's worth. They are not looking for anyone's approval so they don't need status symbols.
There are billions of people in the world with interests other than clothes and status symbols. I feel sorry for you that you are so shallow you don't realize this.
They also think about the future (neither have children). Neither of their husbands will have to work a shitty job. They can do what they want. It's all about giving yourself options in the future.
I can think of other women, as well. My brother's (not by blood) mother. President of a very large organization. Finally got rid of her 15 year old toyota for a new one. Probably the most she has ever spent on a single item. Spends her money on culture and travel. My aunt. Head of the most advanced children's hospital (still being built). Has appeared on Oprah numerous times because of her work. No car. maybe a $400,000 condo, if that. Nothing expensive in her house. Her single indulgence is her fur coat, which she wears because she says nothing beats fur for warmth.
These are all people that could easily purchase multi-million dollar homes. It would actually seem to make more sense if they did. But there is no reason. New large houses seperate families and tend to be poorly built. It's also a waste of money.
My mother has two other sisters worth at least a few million (in cash) each that I didn't even touch on.
Oh, and guess what. All of these women are what you could call liberals and would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant helping other people. As would I. Sorry, bud, but your view is a little too narrow to cut it.
I would hardly call it narrow since Dems and Reps split the country about 45%-45%.
I don't endorse the worldview you seem to have read into my posts. I was simply showing Shawn how you can make a lot of money, have a lot of things and still end up with nothing. You are 100% correct that spending money on clothes and status is silly. Most of all, it doesn't indicate wealth or true prosperity.
You will also note that in the end I mentioned that it will come down to a choice between money and time. I said that I am sure that family will always understand that money isn't everything and be willing to live within whatever means to insure that they have time together as a family.
I then mentioned that the one party that would never understand this concept is the government. You can buy a smaller house, forgo a car, cable or whatever... but the only thing you can't forgo is taxes. The only thing you can't "simplify" in your life is your obligation to the government.
I assure you that you and I are of the same mindset about giving yourself options in the future.
I'll give you a little background on myself. I'm a school teacher that makes about 56k a year. I drive a 1993 Jeep Cherokee. I bought it this year for $3300 to replace the 1990 Cherokee I had because it had 220,000 on it and...well it was done.
My other "toys" are a 1970 RV which I have enjoyed refurbishing by hand. I also have a 1976 waterski boat that I received for free and refurbished by hand. It is named "Walk Two Moons" after Sharon Creech, my current favorite children's author.
Our house was purchased for $115k and is a 4 bedroom 3 bath tile/stucco job that is very common in California. It also has a pool and a jacuzzi.
I also own an apartment building (5 units), a rental house (3bed 1.5 bath) and have sold my Long Beach condo so I can purchase a cabin or two up in Idyllwild, CA. near where I live. (Beautiful city in the San Bernadino National Forest)
I work 176 days a year and the rest of the time I get to spend with my lovely wife (who doesn't work) and my 3 and 1 year old sons.
Now you mention that they would all gladly give more of their money to help people, and here is the rub. So would I. In fact I have been giving monthly to two charity organizations for close to 7 years now.
The deal is that government doesn't help people.
I don't say this ignorantly listening to some talk radio show. I worked in schools in the LBC (Long Beach/Compton) and South Central Los Angeles for 10 years. (I worked in Maxine Water's district) I went to the root of the problem because where the problems are deepest, the answers are clearest.
Government programs were not what these folks needed to help them.
Food stamps, they get traded on 60 cents for the dollar for real money so that parents can go out and buy more drugs. The government helps them buy more drugs, not food.
Couples remain unmarried and lie about support because if they didn't they wouldn't get the benefits they now receive. They benefits are not due to them, rather it is the government making everyone portray themselves in the most pitiful light possible to scramble for the limited resources they are going to hand out. Why scramble for them? Well you can't beat the price, free. It is degradation, not help.
The government divides people. It is constantly seeking to classify them by race, gender and age. The charities I support have never asked my my gender or race, nor do they ask it of the people they help. They are neutral and assist those who truly need it.
Now as for your examples, good will to them. I hope someday when they have families and limited time, they will find the decision so easy. Again the one expense, the second largest one that they cannot make go away is taxes. They can sell the house, the cars, the toys, but the government will always be there knocking with it's hand out.
you are only writing from one point of view. You keep referring to the wife that wants the nice car and house. Could it be that this is the problem?
Your model assumes two things:
1. That someone will buy everything in one year instead of twenty
2. That women are golddiggers and it is a man's responsibility to feed that.
Perhaps that is your life, but it is hardly a realistic blueprint of human behavior. I get the feeling that your world-view has been shaped by too many years in suburban America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Giant,
Honestly I don't wish to question your comprehension because... well it isn't nice.
The expensive to maintain girlfriend characterization was Shawn's. I repeatedly mentioned that when I made any reference to it. Even then I wouldn't call a woman expecting a man to provide a "gold digger." If this is indeed your view then you are the one suffering from narrow vision.
The reason I assumed Shawn would buy many of those things is simple. Taxes. Do you want to go look up the rate on a single gentleman who has NO deductions has to pay for taxes?
Shawn being fiscally responsible would see (or likely be friends with) a tax attorney. That attorney would tell him to maximize his 401k and also buy a decent size house to get a mortgage deduction.
The 400k house? My idea? I am sure if you will check Shawn is the one who said having a 400k house meant that you were financially successful.
The car? Shawn mentioned that he wanted the BMW, not the Volvo. Again who was hung up on status? Mr. Conservative in your opinion(me) or Mr. Liberal son of a college professor and teacher.
Giant please add something to this discussion. Don't sit there and start attacking people and their lifestyles. All I did is mention to Shawn that achieving his dream lifestyle might not leave him with as much time and money as he thought. When he starts looking to simplify things, the only party that won't be accomodating is the government.
I said that might make him a little more conservative later in life. I didn't say Republican, I even teased that he would become a DLC Democrat instead of a very liberal Democrat which he gladly professes to be.
Lastly, suppose that characterization had been true, be it Shawn, myself, or anyone. Who the heck are you to judge? Just because someone has a large home doesn't mean they are shoddy or the family seperated. No matter what I called attention to regarding people and their lifestyles I never said they were bad or wrong. I didn't question how their time or their money were spent. I simply mentioned that the expense of taxes is large for most (usually your second largest expense) and that for many, regardless of the choices they make, it becomes a part of their lives they do want to control like all the others. When this happens, it usually signals them becoming more convservative. Now why don't you give that pointing finger a rest, it must be tired from overuse.
About the original question: Is it fair/okay/whatever that a lottery winner is taxed as high as it is.
Look at it from a classic microeconomic view. Each lottery ticket buyers know (or have reasonable easy access to knowledge) about the tax rules that applies to their purchase. Even then they think its a better deal for them than if they had bought something else. The taxation laws doesn´t force you to buy a lottery ticket. You are still free to do (or not to do) so. Morality isn´t a variable in microeconomics. It only alters the balance of desirability among different goods. And if anything high taxation on lottery winnings create more jobs because people would use more of their money on goods that needed to be fabricated than on lottery tickets.
And to be honest. There are other things to be worried about in the world than the welfare of a man who won at least $90m
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.
(The point about you "still talking about all those bills" remains particularly strong because you are hungover on status. That's just not the point, but the above is the point)
but i think the point nick is getting at is the fact that you as a lawyer will probably be working more then your parents did and will probably getting paid (and taxed) more as well, causing you to try and regulate the amount you get taxed...
[quote] However someday when you are sitting on the expressway, wishing you were at home with the kids and wife, you will realize that the time you have spend away from them would be so much less if the government didn't need 25-37% of your income. This of course could go up to 45% of your income after you include sales tax, state tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc. <hr></blockquote>
Anders is 100% correct. Don't like the taxes? Don't buy the ticket. The Lottery takes important dollars out of circulation anyway, and directly to the government. It's practically an invisible tax in and of itself. They could tax the winnings at 99% as far as I'm concerned because it's their device.
A car dealer could charge you $100,000 for the paint job when you buy your new car. You'd just buy it somewhere else.
Trumptman's argument is specious because he talks about regretting money that I won't have. I mean, we all can agree that I might afford more time to spend at home if I had the money I might use to pay off the water bill, or the electricity bill, or my bill to society (taxes). But let's face it, as a Democrat I encourage the use of taxpayer money to fund social programs like social security. And in fact if I vote for the right guy, maybe I will see some of that back instead of it going to the upper class.
Comments
So, I'll have to say that our disagreement on that... er...um...uhhh.... OTHER thread, may also have something to do with your parents' profession.
Lots of DARE and "Just Say No", huh???
<strong>Oh God. They drilled the no drugs and alcohol message into me before I even had a chance to protest. Now it's like that little voice inside of me IS MY OWN voice...</strong><hr></blockquote>
ROTFLMAO (and I'm not even high....)
Good one!!
<strong>Oh God. They drilled the no drugs and alcohol message into me before I even had a chance to protest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good. There's hope yet that we can convince you to argue in favor of legalizing hemp!
<strong>Geez, I leave for one night, and this darn topic goes to 2 pages??? Should have known it all came from a downward spiral into political parties. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Honestly, I was just pissed that winning 280 mil could go to 90-something in an eyeblink. Nowhere had I expected people would take a Republican vs. Democrat spin on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blame trumptman....
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
you are only writing from one point of view. You keep referring to the wife that wants the nice car and house. Could it be that this is the problem?
Your model assumes two things:
1. That someone will buy everything in one year instead of twenty
2. That women are golddiggers and it is a man's responsibility to feed that.
Perhaps that is your life, but it is hardly a realistic blueprint of human behavior. I get the feeling that your world-view has been shaped by too many years in suburban America.
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. Does not own a car (this is not NY). Lives in a tiny ~$150k condo. Most expensive purchase this year: still digital camera. Probably has not seen a mall in a year or two. No cable. Thinking about buying a moped, but has been talking about it for a year and not done it.
My ladyfriend- will be CFO at her company by end of 2003. Makes probably 2 or 3 times as much as me right now. Drives a 1990 lincoln she is borrowing from her parents, who she lives with right now. Talks about buying a condo, but really doesn't have any important reason to. Most expensive individual purchase this year (excluding her multiple vacations)? probably the norelco spectra she bought me for christmas.
Why aren't they spending their money on junk? Because it is useless and more trouble than it's worth. They are not looking for anyone's approval so they don't need status symbols.
There are billions of people in the world with interests other than clothes and status symbols. I feel sorry for you that you are so shallow you don't realize this.
They also think about the future (neither have children). Neither of their husbands will have to work a shitty job. They can do what they want. It's all about giving yourself options in the future.
I can think of other women, as well. My brother's (not by blood) mother. President of a very large organization. Finally got rid of her 15 year old toyota for a new one. Probably the most she has ever spent on a single item. Spends her money on culture and travel. My aunt. Head of the most advanced children's hospital (still being built). Has appeared on Oprah numerous times because of her work. No car. maybe a $400,000 condo, if that. Nothing expensive in her house. Her single indulgence is her fur coat, which she wears because she says nothing beats fur for warmth.
These are all people that could easily purchase multi-million dollar homes. It would actually seem to make more sense if they did. But there is no reason. New large houses seperate families and tend to be poorly built. It's also a waste of money.
My mother has two other sisters worth at least a few million (in cash) each that I didn't even touch on.
Oh, and guess what. All of these women are what you could call liberals and would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant helping other people. As would I. Sorry, bud, but your view is a little too narrow to cut it.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Is she single?
<strong>
Is she single?
You're just weeks late. I just talked the love of her life into moving back to Chicago (he was pissing his life away in Tampa). They've been inseperable since he got here.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
.
.
I'm just the average Joe who wonders how 280 mil can turn into 94 mil- that's all
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
] <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/27/powerball.winner/"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/27/powerball.winner/</a>;
$315 mil.
I'll be happy for the difference. Finders keepers?
I agree with you, Nick, with the exception being Free Trade. Without an export market the US economy would be in the toilet and you?re all be driving Ford Taurus and Tempos.
LOL.
Yes, I drive a 1994 Golf GTI. Thought it was a better car than the 318. Plus the mechanics don?t look at you funny and with stars in their eyes when you come in for service.
<strong>Why is it "scaring" them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When has the GOP tried to take away anybody?s Social Security?
[quote]<strong>Are Republicans using scare tactics when they say Democrats are going to raise taxes, or take away their guns, etc. etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dems don?t raise taxes? They don?t try to take away your guns? Since when? Try buying a gun in D.C.
[quote]<strong>I think the implication is that old people are dumb and gullible and susceptible to scare tactics. That's bad enough in itself, but it also implies there is no substance to what Democrats say about the issue. But there is substance to it.
What did Democrats say in 2000? Gore said that Bush's plans would create problems for Social Security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Newsflash: Social Security already had a boatload of problems when Gore made that claim. And what was all that talk about a ?lockbox?? This is what you call substance? Did anybody besides Gore think that was even a vaguely serious response to the problem?
[quote]<strong>Bush accused Gore of using fuzzy math, and promised that he would not need the social security surplus to balance the budget. But that's exactly what has happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, his crystal ball failed to see the WoT although he did warn of a softening economy that nobody else saw coming.
[quote]<strong>Bush also proposed partially privatizing social security (after the tax cut and the recession and the wars this does seem to have gone away now)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hasn?t gone away. You?re just reflexively cynical about anything Bush says. Do you really want to suggest that when Daschle was running the Senate he would have worked with Bush on such a proposal? Bush also promised an education bill. He did that. He said he?d sign off on campaign finance reform. Kept that promise too. I?m not wild about the results in either of those cases but he certainly did what he said he?d do - same with his tax bill. He also promised to address prescription drugs. That looks to be at the top of next year?s agenda.
[quote]<strong>... which DOES in fact pose difficulties for current retirees because the money for privatization has to come from somewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Current retirees wouldn?t be affected by Bush?s proposal. You talk as if everyone would make the same choice if private accounts were to become available.
[quote]<strong>The fact is there ARE differences between Republicans' and Democrats' views of Social Security.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. I never said otherwise. Republicans have offered a real proposal to address the problems Social Security faces. Democrats offer scare tactics.
<strong>Let me just add two real world examples of women that demonstrate the diversity of lifestyles:
My cousin (and very close friend)- Co-owner of successful media company. Makes enough that she literally is not exactly sure how much. Does not own a car (this is not NY). Lives in a tiny ~$150k condo. Most expensive purchase this year: still digital camera. Probably has not seen a mall in a year or two. No cable. Thinking about buying a moped, but has been talking about it for a year and not done it.
My ladyfriend- will be CFO at her company by end of 2003. Makes probably 2 or 3 times as much as me right now. Drives a 1990 lincoln she is borrowing from her parents, who she lives with right now. Talks about buying a condo, but really doesn't have any important reason to. Most expensive individual purchase this year (excluding her multiple vacations)? probably the norelco spectra she bought me for christmas.
Why aren't they spending their money on junk? Because it is useless and more trouble than it's worth. They are not looking for anyone's approval so they don't need status symbols.
There are billions of people in the world with interests other than clothes and status symbols. I feel sorry for you that you are so shallow you don't realize this.
They also think about the future (neither have children). Neither of their husbands will have to work a shitty job. They can do what they want. It's all about giving yourself options in the future.
I can think of other women, as well. My brother's (not by blood) mother. President of a very large organization. Finally got rid of her 15 year old toyota for a new one. Probably the most she has ever spent on a single item. Spends her money on culture and travel. My aunt. Head of the most advanced children's hospital (still being built). Has appeared on Oprah numerous times because of her work. No car. maybe a $400,000 condo, if that. Nothing expensive in her house. Her single indulgence is her fur coat, which she wears because she says nothing beats fur for warmth.
These are all people that could easily purchase multi-million dollar homes. It would actually seem to make more sense if they did. But there is no reason. New large houses seperate families and tend to be poorly built. It's also a waste of money.
My mother has two other sisters worth at least a few million (in cash) each that I didn't even touch on.
Oh, and guess what. All of these women are what you could call liberals and would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant helping other people. As would I. Sorry, bud, but your view is a little too narrow to cut it.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would hardly call it narrow since Dems and Reps split the country about 45%-45%.
I don't endorse the worldview you seem to have read into my posts. I was simply showing Shawn how you can make a lot of money, have a lot of things and still end up with nothing. You are 100% correct that spending money on clothes and status is silly. Most of all, it doesn't indicate wealth or true prosperity.
You will also note that in the end I mentioned that it will come down to a choice between money and time. I said that I am sure that family will always understand that money isn't everything and be willing to live within whatever means to insure that they have time together as a family.
I then mentioned that the one party that would never understand this concept is the government. You can buy a smaller house, forgo a car, cable or whatever... but the only thing you can't forgo is taxes. The only thing you can't "simplify" in your life is your obligation to the government.
I assure you that you and I are of the same mindset about giving yourself options in the future.
I'll give you a little background on myself. I'm a school teacher that makes about 56k a year. I drive a 1993 Jeep Cherokee. I bought it this year for $3300 to replace the 1990 Cherokee I had because it had 220,000 on it and...well it was done.
My other "toys" are a 1970 RV which I have enjoyed refurbishing by hand. I also have a 1976 waterski boat that I received for free and refurbished by hand. It is named "Walk Two Moons" after Sharon Creech, my current favorite children's author.
Our house was purchased for $115k and is a 4 bedroom 3 bath tile/stucco job that is very common in California. It also has a pool and a jacuzzi.
I also own an apartment building (5 units), a rental house (3bed 1.5 bath) and have sold my Long Beach condo so I can purchase a cabin or two up in Idyllwild, CA. near where I live. (Beautiful city in the San Bernadino National Forest)
I work 176 days a year and the rest of the time I get to spend with my lovely wife (who doesn't work) and my 3 and 1 year old sons.
Now you mention that they would all gladly give more of their money to help people, and here is the rub. So would I. In fact I have been giving monthly to two charity organizations for close to 7 years now.
The deal is that government doesn't help people.
I don't say this ignorantly listening to some talk radio show. I worked in schools in the LBC (Long Beach/Compton) and South Central Los Angeles for 10 years. (I worked in Maxine Water's district) I went to the root of the problem because where the problems are deepest, the answers are clearest.
Government programs were not what these folks needed to help them.
Food stamps, they get traded on 60 cents for the dollar for real money so that parents can go out and buy more drugs. The government helps them buy more drugs, not food.
Couples remain unmarried and lie about support because if they didn't they wouldn't get the benefits they now receive. They benefits are not due to them, rather it is the government making everyone portray themselves in the most pitiful light possible to scramble for the limited resources they are going to hand out. Why scramble for them? Well you can't beat the price, free. It is degradation, not help.
The government divides people. It is constantly seeking to classify them by race, gender and age. The charities I support have never asked my my gender or race, nor do they ask it of the people they help. They are neutral and assist those who truly need it.
Now as for your examples, good will to them. I hope someday when they have families and limited time, they will find the decision so easy. Again the one expense, the second largest one that they cannot make go away is taxes. They can sell the house, the cars, the toys, but the government will always be there knocking with it's hand out.
Nick
<strong>trumptman,
you are only writing from one point of view. You keep referring to the wife that wants the nice car and house. Could it be that this is the problem?
Your model assumes two things:
1. That someone will buy everything in one year instead of twenty
2. That women are golddiggers and it is a man's responsibility to feed that.
Perhaps that is your life, but it is hardly a realistic blueprint of human behavior. I get the feeling that your world-view has been shaped by too many years in suburban America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Giant,
Honestly I don't wish to question your comprehension because... well it isn't nice.
The expensive to maintain girlfriend characterization was Shawn's. I repeatedly mentioned that when I made any reference to it. Even then I wouldn't call a woman expecting a man to provide a "gold digger." If this is indeed your view then you are the one suffering from narrow vision.
The reason I assumed Shawn would buy many of those things is simple. Taxes. Do you want to go look up the rate on a single gentleman who has NO deductions has to pay for taxes?
Shawn being fiscally responsible would see (or likely be friends with) a tax attorney. That attorney would tell him to maximize his 401k and also buy a decent size house to get a mortgage deduction.
The 400k house? My idea? I am sure if you will check Shawn is the one who said having a 400k house meant that you were financially successful.
The car? Shawn mentioned that he wanted the BMW, not the Volvo. Again who was hung up on status? Mr. Conservative in your opinion(me) or Mr. Liberal son of a college professor and teacher.
Giant please add something to this discussion. Don't sit there and start attacking people and their lifestyles. All I did is mention to Shawn that achieving his dream lifestyle might not leave him with as much time and money as he thought. When he starts looking to simplify things, the only party that won't be accomodating is the government.
I said that might make him a little more conservative later in life. I didn't say Republican, I even teased that he would become a DLC Democrat instead of a very liberal Democrat which he gladly professes to be.
Lastly, suppose that characterization had been true, be it Shawn, myself, or anyone. Who the heck are you to judge? Just because someone has a large home doesn't mean they are shoddy or the family seperated. No matter what I called attention to regarding people and their lifestyles I never said they were bad or wrong. I didn't question how their time or their money were spent. I simply mentioned that the expense of taxes is large for most (usually your second largest expense) and that for many, regardless of the choices they make, it becomes a part of their lives they do want to control like all the others. When this happens, it usually signals them becoming more convservative. Now why don't you give that pointing finger a rest, it must be tired from overuse.
Nick
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
Look at it from a classic microeconomic view. Each lottery ticket buyers know (or have reasonable easy access to knowledge) about the tax rules that applies to their purchase. Even then they think its a better deal for them than if they had bought something else. The taxation laws doesn´t force you to buy a lottery ticket. You are still free to do (or not to do) so. Morality isn´t a variable in microeconomics. It only alters the balance of desirability among different goods. And if anything high taxation on lottery winnings create more jobs because people would use more of their money on goods that needed to be fabricated than on lottery tickets.
And to be honest. There are other things to be worried about in the world than the welfare of a man who won at least $90m
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.
(The point about you "still talking about all those bills" remains particularly strong because you are hungover on status. That's just not the point, but the above is the point)
[quote] However someday when you are sitting on the expressway, wishing you were at home with the kids and wife, you will realize that the time you have spend away from them would be so much less if the government didn't need 25-37% of your income. This of course could go up to 45% of your income after you include sales tax, state tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc. <hr></blockquote>
A car dealer could charge you $100,000 for the paint job when you buy your new car. You'd just buy it somewhere else.
Trumptman's argument is specious because he talks about regretting money that I won't have. I mean, we all can agree that I might afford more time to spend at home if I had the money I might use to pay off the water bill, or the electricity bill, or my bill to society (taxes). But let's face it, as a Democrat I encourage the use of taxpayer money to fund social programs like social security. And in fact if I vote for the right guy, maybe I will see some of that back instead of it going to the upper class.
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>