YOU MUST READ!!!! - Page 5

AirGoya · 08-08-2007, 06:08 PM

jigga what?

*Mr. Wyndham* · 08-08-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirGoya

jigga what?

Look. The fact of the matter is that when most "average people" (middle-class) think of a "rich" person. They think of the CEO's and owners of companys that get off way easy for their money and benifits package. If reform was put in place that forced theses folks to be treated more like the other employees, then an equal tax across the board would be fine. Because the "rich" wouldn't be so rich...They'd be better off, and kudos to them for being there, because they worked for it. But along with this "across the board" tax, there must also be cut-offs. Like I said, the better off shouldn't have to give up half of their paycheck, rather just make them pay a little more. 23% instead of 15, and for the real poor, those who rake in less than 18,000 a year, they should only have to pay, idk, like 8% or something. Whatever is done should be done relatively, but not outrageous. Because if I worked my ass off for my money, and I decided to be a Aerospace engineer or something, I'd be uber pissed if I had to give up 1/2 my earnings, because I make more than everybody else.
I guess I just try to put myself into each of everybody's position before I come to an opinion. I've finally come to the conclusion that I want to stay right where I am in the middle class. I don't want to be "rich" and I certainly don't wan't to be "poor".

Consequently, I plan on becoming a Technology Teacher (you "experienced" one's may know me better as a Shop teacher, but now we teach computers, and energy, too.) for 10-15 years, and then become a principal of a school. Now principals make a pretty hefty amount. But they earn it. And I will have worked my ass of to get there, so I don't want to have to pay more because I earned more.

(sigh)

AirGoya · 08-08-2007, 11:17 PM

well good luck with that dragon. And if you do become a principal then try not to get too mad at seniors pranksters.

*Mr. Wyndham* · 08-08-2007, 11:29 PM

Hell no! I'll probably help them!

Unlike some people, I've never forgotten where I came from. I don't plan on starting now, or ever. So I'll remember what it was like to be a "senior prankster"...and like I said, I'll probably help!

better to have the students in your pocket, so to speak, then all against the "crotchety old principal"

*DGthe3* · 08-08-2007, 11:41 PM

Hmm, interesting you mentioned aero-eng there dragoneye, thats where I plan on ending up. And as far as money and taxes go, I really don't care. The way I see it, my healthcare, education, security, and so on all come from the government and not everyone can put an equal amount into the services which we all need. So those that can provide more should provide more so that those with less have the opertunity to get to the top.

MerF · 08-09-2007, 09:33 AM

My buddy here at work may dip into the next tax bracket this year. In which case he'll owe taxes.

In which case he'll have made LESS money than he did last year, gross, dude to the heavier taxes he'll be paying on in the end.

That's just stupid. I'm not sure where it fits into the conversation, but it's annoying because I'm along the same income bracket as him and will have that problem when I have a couple years under my belt here. I'm gonna be pissed, no way around it.

JMROD · 08-09-2007, 10:29 AM

I dont think he will be making less in gross. I think poeple have the misunderstood concept about how taxes and "tax brackets" work. To avoid a long post think of "tax brackets" as diminishing returns. Example numbers, Say I make 75k/year the first 25k (0-25k) gets taxed at 25%, the next 25k (25k-50k) gets taxed at 30% and the last 25k (50k-75K) gets taxed at 35%. This is why I use the phrase "dimishing returns. I always hear poele say "Oh no I will be getting taxed more if I move up a tax bracket" . Yes and no, as I explained above.

With the subject of taxes, the problem with "luxury tax" is the identification of a "luxury". Whos says whats a luxury? Its relative. In the end we all really only need food, air and water. Everything else beyond that is a luxury. But that definition is relative to me?

I am not sure what is the best way to settle the famous tax debate. I think I lean more towards a sales tax system. BUt I feel that might hinder the economy. You may not get as much activity due to poeple wanting to avoid taxes. Our economy thrives when there alot of activity.

I think public health care system should be a choice. Like paying taxes for public school system, I think poeple should have a choice to pay into it if they use it and NOT have to pay into it if they dont use it. If I pay for private school why should I pay for public through taxes? I bill like this got voted down in California, can you believe that? Poeple voted against having a choice(yes, I know they had there reasons, I am not sure I agree with though).

MerF · 08-09-2007, 12:03 PM

Thanks JMROD, I had no idea the bracketing worked like that. I'll have to look into it more and tell the friend about it.

EllwynX · 08-09-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMROD

Like paying taxes for public school system, I think poeple should have a choice to pay into it if they use it and NOT have to pay into it if they dont use it. If I pay for private school why should I pay for public through taxes? I bill like this got voted down in California, can you believe that? Poeple voted against having a choice(yes, I know they had there reasons, I am not sure I agree with though).

I've stated many times that people with no children shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools. I don't have, and will never have, any children. I'm not going to use it, so shouldn't have to pay for it. Why should I pay to educate the children of all the illegals in my area who don't even pay taxes themselves...

Ugh... I won't even get started on that.

MerF · 08-09-2007, 06:33 PM

THat's funny because we just had a discussion about this last night. The discussion came to an agreement from both sides when the point that SOCIETY is based on the education of our youth.

Your kids may not benefit from your taxes...but the kid raised in school today who develops the next vaccine or goes on to run the country benefits from his education paid by your taxes.

*DGthe3* · 08-09-2007, 09:22 PM

to me, those that complain about having to pay taxes for services they choose not to use are the source of their own problems. The private school promoters are generally the worst. They send their kids to a 'better' school since the public ones are so terrible. Then they complain that their taxes are paying for education that their kids aren't reciving. And whose fault is that? THEY put thier kids in the private school, not the government, not the average citizen. So why should everyone else pay more because you elected to not use services provided to you?

*Mr. Wyndham* · 08-09-2007, 11:40 PM

I agree, if you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay the School Tax. Maybe only half? 'Cause I 100% agree with MerF's statement. It's not just your kids (or lack thereof) the school is helping, it's the rest of the kids in the community.

Help the Children of the world, cause they'll have to help you some day.

JMROD · 08-10-2007, 10:04 AM

I can see both sides of the argument here and I stand somewhere in the middle at this point in my life but Ill play a bit of the "no tax" side.

Its not a question of helping and "improving the future", its about choice. Somone comes and tells me "you must use your money for this because I say it helps us all". Well isnt it my money? Shouldnt I be the one to decide what to do with my own money? Its about the freedom to choose.

I may also prove that there are tons and tons of kids growing up in broken down homes and this is the true bane of society. It wouldnt matter how much money you throw into the public education system those kids have issues and they could care less about learning or have to much to handle to properly function at school. My wife is a teacher and I hear about this first hand. She really takes it personal when her kids dont do well and I try and explain that she can only do so much. I tell her she has those kids for 1 hour out of the day for one year in their entire life. Its very difficult to replace what a broken home is not providing and its not the public school systems job to be parents.

You might be suprised but some parents actually expect the schools to do things THEY should be doing. "I am paying taxes for this YOU should be doing everything for MY kids education, if they fail its because of YOU because I pay taxes...so I have done my part now here are my kids go teach!" (just an idea of the type of attitude in some parents, no one actually said this in those words). Its very sad...very sad. Some poeple just dont deserve to have kids. Anyone can make kids but not all are willing to be parents or understand what parenting means.

Another way of argueing against the "education needs more money" side is this. Assume there is a company A and company B. Which do you invest in? The one that over spends irresponsibly and really does nothing to improve thier bussiness with money they have recieved so far, or the company that is just the opposite? My point is, and I have talked about this with my wife, sometimes the answer is not more money if poeple do not know how to properly manage it. So 10 cents out of every dollar I pay in taxes actually get used properly (made up numbers to prove points) and it makes sense to keep throwing money at it? We have to make sure there is proper managment and responsiblity before we keep throwing money.

Do you know what type of attitude there is amoungts teachers in the public school system? They are there for themselves, not the kids. This is not true of all teachers, schools or districts but this attitude is definetly in my wifes school and I think there are many like it. They are not there in the interests of the kids. They have very poor atitudes and are there for paychecks and summers off. Now, again, I know not all teachers are like this but I believe this is evident if not prevelant in the public school systems and probably only in the "bad" areas.

If this is prevalent in bad areas what does that mean? I believe it backs up what I have felt and believe for the most part of my life. Most if not all problems begin in the home. Throwing 100 billion more into schools cant fix the home. It may help but maybe there is a way our money can better "help our kids and the future".

Sorry I got started and couldnt stop. I will stop now. I have made some points on one side of the debate but in reality I stand somewhere in the middle. I am not sure I have the right to tell my neighbor "pay for my kid to go to school so that he doesnt grow up a looser and steals your car in a few years". That logic is a bit clouded IMO. At the same time I know I cant expect society to be fine if I dont step up and help out in some way. We "good" poeple cant just stand by and watch the "bad" poeple take over and influence society. Teaching is really a calling not a career. Its very hard and I think they are one of the most important poeple in the world. I believe we can improve the quality of teachers by making it so that they get paid what they deserve. For these reasons and more I am somwhere in the middle but I am not sure taxes are the solve all. I am for having the most advance, sophisticated and effective education system in the world and I believe this would have a profound effect on our future. I would be willing to pay for this but should I get the choice?

I can keep going but I will stop now for sure this time.

Silverado · 08-10-2007, 10:52 AM

Man JMRod, you sound like you just repeated everything that has been going on around here lately. Big school controversy/debate/etc. Way too long to explain, but it definitely boils down to money. The biggest district around here thinks it needs to take everyone else's money to pay for their students, most of which are the type you described (broken home, don't care, etc). It's a mess.

Personally, I totally agree that if you don't send kids to school in a district that you shouldn't have to pay those taxes. However, I also feel that education is one thing that I am willing to pay for through taxes, regardless of my "usage" of it. The problem is as you mention, the mismanagement and misuse of the funds. Too many schools are worried about having free after-school programs for the underprivledged, free breakfast/lunch programs, hiring extra teachers/nurses/administrators that speak Spanish to cater to the illegals, etc. That's just wrong because it takes away from the kids that are there to get a solid education and go on to become something other than a drain on society. All this "free to the underprivledged" stuff really bugs me, because I feel that everyone should pay their fair share (anyone who has read my posts earlier in the thread knows my opinion well). I would mind even less paying for education that my kids may not use if I didn't also have to pay for a bunch of free programs/water parks in the poor neighborhoods/welfare/etc that I'm not allowed to use because I don't qualify as "underprivledged".

I agree that a lot of it starts at home, and more should be done to push it back home and keep it out of the schools.

What it really comes down to is that there is no longer any shame in being uneducated, having a prison record, not having a job but collecting a check, etc. I don't know if any of you saw Cinderella Man (with Russell Crowe), but there was a scene there where he had to go down to the welfare office (another issue of today, they don't have to go get it, we mail it to them) to get some money to feed his kids. He was hanging his head, trying to keep people from seeing him, etc. In another scene, he had to go into a "high society club" which he used to get into regularly and beg for some money from people he knew. He was ashamed of having to do it and it made him work to get back out of his situation. Okay, yes, I know, some of that may have been Hollywood-ed up, but the point is still made. Make it more shameful to collect welfare, and people will work to get off of it. Make it shameful to drop out of school, and people will work harder to stay in. Make it shameful (and not a "badge of honor") to have a prison record and more people will work harder to not do the things that get them put in prison.

It won't cure everything, but it will be a big start with lasting effects.

08-08-2007, 06:08 PM	#57
AirGoya Drives: 2012 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chicago/Carbondale Posts: 815	jigga what? __________________ -Tim

08-08-2007, 11:17 PM	#59
AirGoya Drives: 2012 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chicago/Carbondale Posts: 815	well good luck with that dragon. And if you do become a principal then try not to get too mad at seniors pranksters. __________________ -Tim

08-08-2007, 11:29 PM	#60
Mr. Wyndham I used to be Dragoneye... Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 31,873 View My Garage	Hell no! I'll probably help them! Unlike some people, I've never forgotten where I came from. I don't plan on starting now, or ever. So I'll remember what it was like to be a "senior prankster"...and like I said, I'll probably help! better to have the students in your pocket, so to speak, then all against the "crotchety old principal" __________________ *"Keep the faith."* - Fbodfather

08-09-2007, 11:40 PM	#68
Mr. Wyndham I used to be Dragoneye... Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 31,873 View My Garage	I agree, if you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay the School Tax. Maybe only half? 'Cause I 100% agree with MerF's statement. It's not just your kids (or lack thereof) the school is helping, it's the rest of the kids in the community. Help the Children of the world, cause they'll have to help you some day. __________________ *"Keep the faith."* - Fbodfather

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
5th Gen Camaro LS3 info from Chevy Hi-Po...READ	TAG UR IT	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	295	03-07-2008 11:06 AM
Mark As Read	Urthman	Site Related Announcements / Suggestions / Feedback / Questions	3	03-27-2007 03:33 PM
Early release plausible when you read this...	rray200	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	22	02-01-2007 02:00 PM
Interesting read on American cars and trucks......	fbodfather	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	8	12-22-2006 09:47 PM

08-08-2007, 11:41 PM	#61
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,366	Hmm, interesting you mentioned aero-eng there dragoneye, thats where I plan on ending up. And as far as money and taxes go, I really don't care. The way I see it, my healthcare, education, security, and so on all come from the government and not everyone can put an equal amount into the services which we all need. So those that can provide more should provide more so that those with less have the opertunity to get to the top.

08-09-2007, 09:33 AM	#62
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	My buddy here at work may dip into the next tax bracket this year. In which case he'll owe taxes. In which case he'll have made LESS money than he did last year, gross, dude to the heavier taxes he'll be paying on in the end. That's just stupid. I'm not sure where it fits into the conversation, but it's annoying because I'm along the same income bracket as him and will have that problem when I have a couple years under my belt here. I'm gonna be pissed, no way around it.

08-09-2007, 10:29 AM	#63
JMROD Drives: 2SS RS ABM "Bumbleblue" Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: So. Cal Posts: 60	I dont think he will be making less in gross. I think poeple have the misunderstood concept about how taxes and "tax brackets" work. To avoid a long post think of "tax brackets" as diminishing returns. Example numbers, Say I make 75k/year the first 25k (0-25k) gets taxed at 25%, the next 25k (25k-50k) gets taxed at 30% and the last 25k (50k-75K) gets taxed at 35%. This is why I use the phrase "dimishing returns. I always hear poele say "Oh no I will be getting taxed more if I move up a tax bracket" . Yes and no, as I explained above. With the subject of taxes, the problem with "luxury tax" is the identification of a "luxury". Whos says whats a luxury? Its relative. In the end we all really only need food, air and water. Everything else beyond that is a luxury. But that definition is relative to me? I am not sure what is the best way to settle the famous tax debate. I think I lean more towards a sales tax system. BUt I feel that might hinder the economy. You may not get as much activity due to poeple wanting to avoid taxes. Our economy thrives when there alot of activity. I think public health care system should be a choice. Like paying taxes for public school system, I think poeple should have a choice to pay into it if they use it and NOT have to pay into it if they dont use it. If I pay for private school why should I pay for public through taxes? I bill like this got voted down in California, can you believe that? Poeple voted against having a choice(yes, I know they had there reasons, I am not sure I agree with though).

08-09-2007, 12:03 PM	#64
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	Thanks JMROD, I had no idea the bracketing worked like that. I'll have to look into it more and tell the friend about it.

08-09-2007, 06:33 PM	#66
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	THat's funny because we just had a discussion about this last night. The discussion came to an agreement from both sides when the point that SOCIETY is based on the education of our youth. Your kids may not benefit from your taxes...but the kid raised in school today who develops the next vaccine or goes on to run the country benefits from his education paid by your taxes.

08-09-2007, 09:22 PM	#67
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,366	to me, those that complain about having to pay taxes for services they choose not to use are the source of their own problems. The private school promoters are generally the worst. They send their kids to a 'better' school since the public ones are so terrible. Then they complain that their taxes are paying for education that their kids aren't reciving. And whose fault is that? THEY put thier kids in the private school, not the government, not the average citizen. So why should everyone else pay more because you elected to not use services provided to you?

08-10-2007, 10:04 AM	#69
JMROD Drives: 2SS RS ABM "Bumbleblue" Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: So. Cal Posts: 60	I can see both sides of the argument here and I stand somewhere in the middle at this point in my life but Ill play a bit of the "no tax" side. Its not a question of helping and "improving the future", its about choice. Somone comes and tells me "you must use your money for this because I say it helps us all". Well isnt it my money? Shouldnt I be the one to decide what to do with my own money? Its about the freedom to choose. I may also prove that there are tons and tons of kids growing up in broken down homes and this is the true bane of society. It wouldnt matter how much money you throw into the public education system those kids have issues and they could care less about learning or have to much to handle to properly function at school. My wife is a teacher and I hear about this first hand. She really takes it personal when her kids dont do well and I try and explain that she can only do so much. I tell her she has those kids for 1 hour out of the day for one year in their entire life. Its very difficult to replace what a broken home is not providing and its not the public school systems job to be parents. You might be suprised but some parents actually expect the schools to do things THEY should be doing. "I am paying taxes for this YOU should be doing everything for MY kids education, if they fail its because of YOU because I pay taxes...so I have done my part now here are my kids go teach!" (just an idea of the type of attitude in some parents, no one actually said this in those words). Its very sad...very sad. Some poeple just dont deserve to have kids. Anyone can make kids but not all are willing to be parents or understand what parenting means. Another way of argueing against the "education needs more money" side is this. Assume there is a company A and company B. Which do you invest in? The one that over spends irresponsibly and really does nothing to improve thier bussiness with money they have recieved so far, or the company that is just the opposite? My point is, and I have talked about this with my wife, sometimes the answer is not more money if poeple do not know how to properly manage it. So 10 cents out of every dollar I pay in taxes actually get used properly (made up numbers to prove points) and it makes sense to keep throwing money at it? We have to make sure there is proper managment and responsiblity before we keep throwing money. Do you know what type of attitude there is amoungts teachers in the public school system? They are there for themselves, not the kids. This is not true of all teachers, schools or districts but this attitude is definetly in my wifes school and I think there are many like it. They are not there in the interests of the kids. They have very poor atitudes and are there for paychecks and summers off. Now, again, I know not all teachers are like this but I believe this is evident if not prevelant in the public school systems and probably only in the "bad" areas. If this is prevalent in bad areas what does that mean? I believe it backs up what I have felt and believe for the most part of my life. Most if not all problems begin in the home. Throwing 100 billion more into schools cant fix the home. It may help but maybe there is a way our money can better "help our kids and the future". Sorry I got started and couldnt stop. I will stop now. I have made some points on one side of the debate but in reality I stand somewhere in the middle. I am not sure I have the right to tell my neighbor "pay for my kid to go to school so that he doesnt grow up a looser and steals your car in a few years". That logic is a bit clouded IMO. At the same time I know I cant expect society to be fine if I dont step up and help out in some way. We "good" poeple cant just stand by and watch the "bad" poeple take over and influence society. Teaching is really a calling not a career. Its very hard and I think they are one of the most important poeple in the world. I believe we can improve the quality of teachers by making it so that they get paid what they deserve. For these reasons and more I am somwhere in the middle but I am not sure taxes are the solve all. I am for having the most advance, sophisticated and effective education system in the world and I believe this would have a profound effect on our future. I would be willing to pay for this but should I get the choice? I can keep going but I will stop now for sure this time.

08-10-2007, 10:52 AM	#70
Silverado GM Guy For Life Drives: 2010 GMC Yukon XL Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 971 View My Garage	Man JMRod, you sound like you just repeated everything that has been going on around here lately. Big school controversy/debate/etc. Way too long to explain, but it definitely boils down to money. The biggest district around here thinks it needs to take everyone else's money to pay for their students, most of which are the type you described (broken home, don't care, etc). It's a mess. Personally, I totally agree that if you don't send kids to school in a district that you shouldn't have to pay those taxes. However, I also feel that education is one thing that I am willing to pay for through taxes, regardless of my "usage" of it. The problem is as you mention, the mismanagement and misuse of the funds. Too many schools are worried about having free after-school programs for the underprivledged, free breakfast/lunch programs, hiring extra teachers/nurses/administrators that speak Spanish to cater to the illegals, etc. That's just wrong because it takes away from the kids that are there to get a solid education and go on to become something other than a drain on society. All this "free to the underprivledged" stuff really bugs me, because I feel that everyone should pay their fair share (anyone who has read my posts earlier in the thread knows my opinion well). I would mind even less paying for education that my kids may not use if I didn't also have to pay for a bunch of free programs/water parks in the poor neighborhoods/welfare/etc that I'm not allowed to use because I don't qualify as "underprivledged". I agree that a lot of it starts at home, and more should be done to push it back home and keep it out of the schools. What it really comes down to is that there is no longer any shame in being uneducated, having a prison record, not having a job but collecting a check, etc. I don't know if any of you saw Cinderella Man (with Russell Crowe), but there was a scene there where he had to go down to the welfare office (another issue of today, they don't have to go get it, we mail it to them) to get some money to feed his kids. He was hanging his head, trying to keep people from seeing him, etc. In another scene, he had to go into a "high society club" which he used to get into regularly and beg for some money from people he knew. He was ashamed of having to do it and it made him work to get back out of his situation. Okay, yes, I know, some of that may have been Hollywood-ed up, but the point is still made. Make it more shameful to collect welfare, and people will work to get off of it. Make it shameful to drop out of school, and people will work harder to stay in. Make it shameful (and not a "badge of honor") to have a prison record and more people will work harder to not do the things that get them put in prison. It won't cure everything, but it will be a big start with lasting effects.