Money Matters
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: NMR: State of the Union Address - thoughts?
I would not. If for no other reason than the trigger of the tax (death) is horrible to deal with. Taxes really make the situation that much worse.
@hoffse, when you say break up family dynasties, does that mean take power from wealthy families or is there another "business" meaning to the term? If it really is just to punish wealthy individuals then that isn't fair at all.
As for the hating the rich thing, I hear about it a lot but I don't really see it in my world. Maybe it's regional? I'm right in the northeast I-95 corridor where lots of rich people are. It could also be because many of my friends and family are better off than I am. What I do see is a lot of the "middle class can't get ahead" attitude which I find frustrating. I don't hate the rich at all, and see nothing wrong with those who can afford nice purchases, making them. I think most people who are born middle class can have a great life if they save and plan and resist the urge to keep up with the Joneses. We have so many opportunities in this country. I do think it's harder for those born into systemic poverty situations, but that's a different conversation.
Example of my frustration: the person in my social circle who gripes about his SLs ruining his future while also smoking weed daily. Really, dude? Take a little bit of responsibility.
Yes, I have only gotten to your post but I think it has been very civil so far. If you don't want to talk politics- don't open the post
I have been below the poverty line. I actually grew up under it and never knew. My parents until I was 11 and we moved made less than I did at my first job after college, and they had 3 kids and a step kid to take care of. My parents never relied on the government for anything other than the typical tax credits (child tax credit, etc) my mom couponed to the extreme before it was cool. She made our clothes, etc. We got by and as kids didn't know any better. Did we have everything we wanted- no. Did we have everything we needed- yes.
By the time I got to college my parents lived in a better city where they had found better jobs- to the point that I didn't qualify for needs based scholarships or anything like that, and they did that. That is why this country is great, you really do have the opportunities to work hard and get ahead, but too many people either don't see that, or are content to live off government hand outs because they are too easy to get used too. (In my opinion).
Anyways, again libertarian. Government should provide basic services, charity and people should decide everything else
I respect you ALL MMers! Thanks for a good read! It's refreshing to discuss.
Fundamentally, I think we have to review what the U.S. Constitution states is the responsibility of the Federal Government...
I like turtles, but paying for a means for their safe movement across roadways isn't a legitimate expenditure on a federal level - neither is the study that was done to observe homosexual hook-up apps: posted by Fox News from the Washington Free Beacon. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/22/feds-spent-432000-studying-gay-hookup-apps/?intcmp=latestnews
The difficult part is that by stating you (formally) do not want to make turtle tunnels or research hook-up apps used by a demographic of the American population sounds like you're an anti-environmental homophobe, which isn't the case at all. We've gotten so sensitized to being PC that we're shooting ourselves in the foot fiscally. Stating that federal funds shouldn't go to turtles or app research on hook-ups isn't a social or environmental issue, it's a fiscal one. There aren't emotions associated with this statement, it's just basic math.
When mom and pop sit at the kitchen table and evaluate the family budget and determine that there isn't enough money for extra firm gluten-free organic tofu with pine nuts on top (making this up - DH and I do eat plant-based, though), the Vegan in the family may be angry and feel like s/he is being judged or like people are against him/her. But a rational person needs to ask, is the cut on organic tofu to slight the Vegan and hurt feelings or to make sure the family can pay its bills to keep a roof over the Vegan's head. It's a matter of priorities and also what the fundamental role of the mom and pop as family leaders is. It's akin to what the role of the federal government's role is as set forth in the Constitution - does the family make a Vegan diet available to anyone and everyone who wants it or does the family leadership make sure the basic necessities are met. What's the role of family leaders? What's the role of Federal Government?
As a Nation, we cannot sustain our basic needs. The federal deficit is going to hit $20T soon.
On this issue of taxation, I'd like to quote a portion from Dr. Ben Carson's book One Nation - What We Can All Do to Save America's Future. On pages 103-106 Carson writes:
"One of the biggest bones of contention revolves around the definition of fair taxation. According to some, fair taxation means taking progressively more from the rich and redistributing it to others after the government takes its "fair share." Others argue that we should reward the wealthy with tax breaks, trusting the wealth will "trickle down." I believe there is a third way that becomes evident once you consider both the viewpoints of the rich and the poor" since both "the rich and the poor have rights and responsibilities in society.
Considering the views of the rich and the poor, I would argue that fair taxation means that everyone contributes according to their ability, or in other words proportionally. I like the idea of proportionality because it was put forth in the Bible as a concept of tithing. All taxpayers were required to give 10% of their increase. If they had no increase they had to give nothing, and if they had an extra large increase, they still only had to give 10% of their increase.
This system recognized that the wealthy were not above the law - no tax breaks and no political clout for having given a larger amount. It also recognized that the poor were not "below" the law - as dignified human beings, they had responsibilities to give, even if just a little.
If our society used this system, a Wall Street mogul who made $10 billion would be required to give $1 billion and a Harlem school teacher who made $50,000 would be required to give $5,000. Even though one would give hundreds of times more than the other, they would both have one vote and the same rights and responsibilities before our government. This fits with the American idea that everybody contributes to the table, no matter how much money each has.
School teachers offer much in terms of training the next generation, whereas billionaires offer much in terms of providing resources to maintain infrastructure and so on that benefit everyone." END QUOTE
I think Carson's taxation idea has merit. It gives dignity to the poor by making them part of the giving and helping process when they are taxed too. And, it allows for the wealthy to contribute without being "robbed" of the fruits of their labor.
During the Great Recession in 2008, before mommy-hood I worked for USBANK. The company had to make cuts (like every other company). We were worried that some of us would have to "go." Then the news came out that the Board and CEO were not firing ANYONE. Across the board, of all rank and file, all the USBANK employees from the CEO on down to the newest part-time teller were taking 5% pay cuts. It worked. No one lost - everyone gave a little and USBANK stayed strong. The employees ALL felt relief and we all wanted to help each other. Everybody gave a little so no one had to give it all.
I know in writing a 10% tax, Carson is just using a round figure for his idea. It's possible the percentage would be lower or even a bit higher. But the concept is great, no matter the percentage.
And so no one accuses Carson of being some wealthy ideologue...he hails from inner city Detroit and his mom had no more than a 3rd grade education - Carson was poor, yet he still thinks the poor are given dignity when they are asked to contribute to the pot.
Yeah, I really like him! Very common sense.
We don't hold any negative thoughts to those wealthier than us, we are trying very hard to reach that kind of life ourselves. I will say that it becomes very hard when we get a lot of judgement from others around us because "we are better than them". We aren't trying to act like that at all, but finances and what not have always been very open topics between everyone in our circle and then we (especially me) are looked at as rude or crazy because we are trying to save what money we do get. I have been able to enroll in the local community college and when I graduate I will be the first in either my or H's families for as many generations as we know.
I know I'm being long winded here, but my point is, we are trying very hard to save and increase our income and I don't want to have to be taxed to the point that it was worthless. Right now about 25% (probably more once you consider sales tax) of our combined income goes to the government. I understand needing to fund necessities, but a flat tax across the board would go a long way to accomplishing that. Why should I be bumped to paying higher taxes just because I did what I had to to get my family out of poverty? Why do I have to give all my hard earned work away because H's sister is totally fine with getting every hand out possible because it is "free". H and I have tried explaining to her just what that free is, but we unintentionally came across as we are better than her.
They were studying the immune systems of shrimp for reasons of evaluating the amount/types of bacteria that people could end up consuming based on recent changes in ocean temperature/bacteria types. I don't know much details beyond that, but the study was for human health benefits. The treadmill was to evaluate immune response while the shrimp was active, since they are active in nature. I am less educated about this than turtles but it seems like a legit study to me. NSF is pretty serious and you need major chops to be funded by them.
I will say, as someone funded by federal grants and agreements, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE if other sources were funding this sort of work. Federal agreements are tough to work on. They require a lot of inefficient steps and paperwork. Maybe if a system like @hoffse describes, where the wealthy are encouraged by the tax code to give even more than the large amount they do anyway, came into play, that would make us all happy.
I hope you guys will still be Internet friends with me even though we disagreed a lot today. It has been a lively debate.
You're still my Internet friend!
You're still my Internet friend!
ThanksI hope you will check out Carson's book. I didn't know much about him until December, actually when my MIL gave me a copy of this book I just quoted. In it he also discusses, Political Correctness, taxes, health care, welfare, education, debt, and other topics.
It's all pretty straight forward. Anyway, I think he'll toss his hat in the ring. But now that Romney and Bush have had their "secret summit" meeting in Utah....who knows....
Carson is refreshing to me and the fact that he hasn't held political office makes me like him even more.
Lol- please hang around, don't leave us!!!!
When I was on board boat on a overhaul, there was a lot of guys that would do nothing during the week but when OT kicked in they would work harder.
As for farm land, near a small town on the growing area, 30 or 50 acres were going for 1.5 million a decade ago. Farm land in the middle of nowhere is when the prices are a lot lower, in the 3 to 10k range.
I also enjoyed reading this thread and want to thank everyone for remembering that they are adults not children like some other boards would have been with a similar post.
@Wulfgar your perspective on the military contract issue was interesting, too. There are definitely two sides to every story.