Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
WSJ knows its audience

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 10:45

On the hardships of Obama's usury tax rates among typical Americans.

-snip-But there are two backdoor tax increases that will apply to people earning far less [sic] - $250,000 for singles and $300,000 for couples.

The first concerns the personal exemption, or the amount of money a taxpayer can deduct for him or herself and dependents. In 2013, this exemption is expected to be $3,900, so a couple with three children could deduct $19,500.

In 2013 the exemption phases out for people starting at the $250,000/$300,000 income thresholds, and vanishes completely for couples at $422,500 of "adjusted gross income," or income before itemized deductions, and at $372,500 for singles. So, a couple with three children and adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more will lose some or all of their $19,500 exemption. " snip

With this helpful graphic. Note diversity in suffering.

Here is a link that might be useful: WSJ article


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

All the examples include substantial "investment income" - the single parent has $35,000 in investment income? And she makes makes $260,000 a year? WOW.

No poor people reading THAT rag.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Loving the graphic, guys!

Those sad looking urchins right beside the text saying "INCOME: $650,000"

Even better, the bold lettering beside the downtrodden looking children of the single mother, indicating a tax increase of $3,000..... right underneath the Income of $260,000.

Won't somebody think of the children!!!

lolol...too funny.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I wanna know why the retired couple look so sad....maybe they were looking for a raise in their SS and medicare....


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

They need a telethon!


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I wanna know why the retired couple look so sad....

I think it's because they are being forced to live on only $180,000 a year.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Single Mom, two kids, $350,000 in income. Obamas' tax rates took an additional 1.2%, and now look......


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

...maybe they were looking for a raise in their SS...

They got that - 1.7% (but the raise in Medicare premiums took a bit of that back).

Must be the "uncertainty" in investment income. Uncertainty - that hobgoblin preventing the job creators from creating jobs.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I saw the same images reposted on Andrew Sullivan's blog and thought for sure that this was a piece put out by The Onion.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Who are all these poor people only bring in 6 figures? How sad for them.

I don't know anyone who earns 6 figures. Most of the folks we know are struggling to maintain 4 and 5 figure salaries and make ends meet. I certainly don't anyone who has the extra funding to invest in the market.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Great contrast of the poor, downtrodden single mother trying to raise 2 children on $260k per year with Dorothea Lange's poignant photo.

Unbelievable.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Can I trade with that single mom? I'm not wild about more than one child, but I'll take that income. I'd settle for half of that income.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I'd be more than happy to live on what they pay in taxes......


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Sigh....there goes that four years to Harvard. I guess you'll have to settle on Bryn Mawr Sally.

-Ron-


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 12:30

Wow. I earn 5 times LESS than that single mother and I'm supporting myself, my DD, SIL and two grandchildren.

Doubling my income would make a HUGE difference.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Depending on where you live a single mom and a couple of kids 260 thou could be a struggle. I was amazed that some people are paying 600-700 a month for daycare and she told me that was cheap compared to the ones she had checked before deciding.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

We are a product of our decisions.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

What rubbish!


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

One of my brothers and one of my sisters fit the income profile of the single person, however they invest much of their income as they have little debt.

Unlike the people pictured above, they're always smiling.

I could live like a king on what I pay annually in property taxes alone...


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

"We are a product of our decisions."

If we are then I thank heaven that I must have made different decisions.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 12:57

"We are a product of our decisions."

If we are then I thank heaven that I must have made different decisions.

*

Different decisions than whom?

Be careful, people that accuse others of wearing veils are usually those with very large holes in their own--from which to cast stones from behind them.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Well, since you asked, you for one.....


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Well, at least you admit you personally insulted me.

I'm being charitable, as usual.

Go and sin no more.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Are you sure you pay enough Mark James? Show of hands..who thinks Mark James should pay more in taxes. We know that he works really really hard, he needs to pick up some slack here.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Sorry if you took it as insult Demi....it wasn't.

I am simply saying that if we are products of our decisions, as you suggest, then I'm glad that the decisions I made put me on a different path. Not saying your choices were wrong.....just different from mine.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I'm sure there are people that don't pay a thin little DIME in federal income taxes that think others should pay more.

Unbelievable.

I think Mark James should get an offset for being a good citizen and being personally responsible

Yea, that's it--tax credits for doing the right thing and working hard and making good decisions--NOT tax credits for being a loser.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

So, you're being charitable now?

You have to tell me these things, I never know.

;)


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

If you are talking to me I have no idea what you mean.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I could live like a king on what I pay annually in property taxes alone...

Sounds like a state thing. Who am I to judge, mrskjun if NY property taxes are too high? I don't even know the value of his properties.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I've paid substantially more taxes than I had to as I haven't taken many deductions I was entitled to.

The same applies to property taxes. I paid higher rates for years before I fought my ridiculous assessments, or cut and run to lower tax regions.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Property taxes are a state and regional issue. In New York, unfunded state mandates consume much of the property tax levy in many regions.

Tax rates vary substantially by city, town, village, school system etc.

A 100k city home in some regions will have higher property taxes than 3 or more 100K homes in regions minutes away with much better services, school systems, quality of life etc.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I can't help but say that I'm exceedingly glad my decisions were different! Priorities and conscience...


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

"We are a product of our decisions."

If we are then I thank heaven that I must have made different decisions.

I agree with Jodi and Chase. I thank heavens that I made different decisions. I am pleased with my product.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I'm pleased that I made different decisions than most of you.

I am pleased with my finances, my family, and my life!

You don't have to be poor to be thankful.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Well, aren't we a happy bunch?

I'm so glad everyone is so happy they made "different" decisions.

I guess that reference means different than my decisions!

Otherwise, what is the "different" reference and piling on the bandwagon all about?

The Riddlers are not so subtle around here.

Going to bed knowing you made the best decisions you could make in life and aren't whining about the results of your personal choices is one of the best feelings in the world.

Contrary to attempts to insert a little equalizer into reality, being poor is no more a badge of conscience or a badge of superior priorities than being rich.

Happy Happy Joy Joy it's all good.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

The different decisions I made, assuming you are correct that we are all a product of our decisions, have zero to do with money.

Perhaps we made similar decisions in that regard, don't know. Certainly I am not poor.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

My most important decisions had nothing to do with money itself, Chase, but I have also made good financial decisions.

I have found that the decisions we make about how well we choose to do in school, how much we study, whether we are willing to think outside the box and take chances on a career, whether we are willing to leave the comfort and security of our community and family to move far away for a better position, whether we are willing to work long hours and weekends, whether we are willing to live in a smaller house, not buy new vehicles, not spend a lot in order to save for our future, not taking on debt we can't handle, saving or not saving--whether we choose to have children early, who we have those children with and if we make a good judgment as to whether that partner will do right by you and those children, whether we choose addiction or discipline--all of those factors contribute greatly in most instances to financial success or security, or at the least, comfort.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

YAWN...the WSJ once was good paper now they are just another Murdoch mouthpiece!


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I understand that Demi, as you say those factors contribute to financial success. It's always about money one way or the other.

I am talking about other decisions, decisions that form who we are beyond financial security. Choices that define our social obligations, our attitude toward our fellow man, toward the environment, toward people different that we are be it race or economic status and much, much more.

As you say we are a product of our decisions and in that regard we are very, very different.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

That Dorothea Lange photo was taken about two miles down the road from where I live.
And they have started growing peas in our area, also.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

My most important decisions had nothing to do with money itself, Chase, but I have also made good financial decisions.

Yes money is easy. There are so many ways of making money. Character and the human being you become is the proof of whether a person made good decisions. JMO

When you die and all anyone cares about is how much money you left them or not. You made the wrong decisions. I always think of Leona Helmsley, and all she had in her life at the end was her dog Troubles. He probably would have run away if they left a window open.

Helmsley had a barbecue pit constructed for her home.The work was performed by Eugene Brennan, a personal friend of Jeremiah McCarthy, the chief engineer of Helmsley-Spear. When the final bill came to $13,000, she refused to pay, citing shoddy workmanship. When McCarthy pleaded with her to honor the bill, citing the favor done on his behalf and informing her that Brennan had six children to support, Helmsley replied, "Why didn't he keep his pants on? Then he wouldn't need the money."

Here is a link that might be useful: Leona Helmsley


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

What does that story have to do with anything, Marquest?

And no, Chase, it's not always about money.

It is about taking personal responsibility for your own life and your choices, though--in my view.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

What does that story have to do with anything, Marquest?

If you have to ask.....Oh Well


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

I always thought that we Australians paid more tax to fund our "socilaist" services but we pay about the same as you and we have no state taxes.

so I have to ask

If we can afford it,why cant you afford universal Government paid health care?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

young the simple answer is WAR.

I do not like Wiki but it was quick and they have an estimate not the real cost to this point.

The cost of the two wars and the interest is breaking America. The pennies that are spent for our citizens in need is very low in comparison what we give away in aide to other countries and our defense budget.

Here is a link that might be useful: We are Broke Because

This post was edited by marquest on Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 0:11


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Oh most certifiably war Pam and the folks who make a living in those industries.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

what a waste of lives AND money !
wasnt it Bin Laden who was famous for saying that he would wage "economic "war on America as it would be more effective?
pity he is going to win.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

pity he is going to win.

Since you do not live in this country you have some idea why many of us that fight for our citizens that are in need. We realize it is not the pennies we spend for food stamps to feed children, and elderly meals on wheels that is costing trillions of dollars.

It amazes me that a political party can hoodwink so many literate adults that personal responsibility fairy tale.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

My annual salary is half of what that poor mother pays in taxes.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 7:39

The cost of the two wars and the interest is breaking America. The pennies that are spent for our citizens in need is very low in comparison what we give away in aide to other countries and our defense budget.

...thought it needed repeating for those who missed (dismiss) it.

Elly mine is not even half of yours :)


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

demi: ...whether we choose addiction...

You think addiction is a choice?

marquest - Leona was such a peach, wasn't she? Shows that money cannot buy you a conscience. And, her comment (and attitude) about keeping his pants on, well, reminds one of someone here, doesn't it?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 8:31

demi: ...whether we choose addiction...

You think addiction is a choice?

marquest - Leona was such a peach, wasn't she? Shows that money cannot buy you a conscience. And, her comment (and attitude) about keeping his pants on, well, reminds one of someone here, doesn't it?

*

Ooooh, claws are out early on Friday for Demi, eh?

Par for the course, another day at the office!

*

(a) Addiction itself is not a choice.

Choosing to indulge one's weakness is.

(b) You are right, the comment about keeping your pants on if you can't afford to pay for your children is correct if
it reminds you of me.

However, you are totally wrong about the attitude and
the manner of treating people that work for you.

Leona Helmsley was a mean tyrant as an employer to many.

People like working for me because I treat them very
well personally, I pay very well and give extra gifts
and money to reward hard work, effort, and consistence.

I'm a peach--the antithesis of Leona Helmsley.

*

Now, since the venom has been milked, can you please go back to referring to the topic and not me, personally?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Well, someone is a little defensive this morning, aren't they?

(a) Addiction itself is not a choice.

Choosing to indulge one's weakness is.

What do you mean? Just lazy and irresponsible if they don't have the means to beat their addiction?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Au contraire, I have nothing to be defensive about.

Just acknowledging your intent--that was your objective, was it not?

*

One cannot help it if they are sensitive to certain substances.

However, once they realize they are sensitive and the alcohol, molesting children or drugs are a problem, choosing to indulge that weakness is a choice.

Look at it this way--if someone held a shotgun to the head of a child molester and said, "if you touch that child I will blow your brains all over this room," I'm betting that child molester would keep his or her hands to themselves.

SO you see, it is a choice.

Same scenario with alcoholics and drug users.
Hold a shotgun to the heads of their children and ask them if they will take a drink or snort cocaine or smoke dope.

With few exceptions, I'm betting the CHOICE would be made to say no.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Same scenario with alcoholics and drug users.
Hold a shotgun to the heads of their children and ask them if they will take a drink or snort cocaine or smoke dope.

Interesting choice of an example.

When the military juntas in Chile and Argentina used the same technique to obtain information from political prisoners it was univerally condemned as an abuse of human rights.

Again, interesting choice for an example.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 10:29

I am sorry Demi but only for that moment when "a gun is held" to their head, but the above instance (pedophile, alcoholic, drug user) no this will not stop them, unless you (not you specifically) intend to stand their 24/7 with that gun "locked and loaded".

I wish the answer to complex behaviors was that simple, but it is not.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

No surprise.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Ah shes just playing kick me and some of us who like to argue these issues won't flame her. Pack it up Demi the gambit is wheezing on the coals!


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

There's nothing interesting about it--that choice says nothing about me, which is what you are clearly implying.

It proves my point that when people are motivated, they CAN make the correct choice.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Addiction is a disease. It is not a choice. Just as mental illness is a disease.

You can no more hold a gun to the head of a person and tell them not to have cancer than you can tell them not to be a Schizophrenic, alcoholic, etc.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

So this gets back to how to FORCE people to make good decisions and be personally responsible? Threaten to kill them?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Physicians often donate their magazines to hospital waiting rooms. The financial mags aren't popular with the poor people, but they seem to enjoy the powerboating, yachting and high end auto mags. Must be the pictures and/or the fantasy aspect...


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

There's nothing interesting about it

I found it quite revealing.

Thank you.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 10:46

There's nothing interesting about it

I found it quite revealing.

Thank you.

*

Well, you're safe if you take a drink around me.
I promise not to go get my shotgun!

But I will call the cops if you snort coke or smoke dope.

:)


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Well, you're safe if you take a drink around me.
I promise not to go get my shotgun!

I would imagine so since putting a gun to my head, or that of children, when posing no physical threat to you, would be against the law.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Really? With my criminal justice and law enforcement background, I had no idea!

I'm so glad you told me.

Revealing is right--don't you people talk about topics or just let me have my opinion or make my point without slamming me and changing the subject to pass judgment on me for my opinions?

"Ain't you tired Miss Nancy, ain't you tired?"


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

There's a long history of choices on this forum and tomes of being offended. Whats the common factor in all of them? Perhaps your addicted to being insulted!


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

So, if somebody held a shot gun to someones head, they'd have the *choice* of not being perpetually offended?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Really? With my criminal justice and law enforcement background

Then you should have been aware that the examples that you cited regarding pedophiles and addicts involved criminal behavior.




Spontaneous examples are offered, unsolicited, and when the implications of those example are pointed out, umbrage abounds. A stupid, illogical, and sadistic example is just that; stupid, illogical, and sadistic.

Now, what about addressing the comments from Ohiomom, David, and Marquest. And perhaps labrea's as well.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Exactly the answer I expected, which shows a lack of understanding of addiction. Or maybe a lack of empathy. Or both.

Either way, it is revealing.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Degrees in Addiction Sciences are handed out so easily these days. Considering it's original source was why I am such a wonderful example to myself & by my own admission.
There is though something that comes close but is still miles away from the bizarre fantasy!
Mind you it is considered controversial by people who have years of practice experience & study (Degrees) in these fields & not a crackpot "I Fell Pretty witty & bright a committeee...yadda yadda yaddah!"

Here is a link that might be useful: Disorder of Choice


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

So, if somebody held a shot gun to someones head, they'd have the *choice* of not being perpetually offended?

Ka- zinng- shish! Best comment all week.


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

Is it time for the pet pictures yet?


 o
RE: WSJ knows its audience

What? A gun to the heads of the pets too?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here