When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Stainmaster]

I grew up with the belief that you should live for now, and make a few plans for the future. Last January, I lost $20,000, and I was surprised that my first reaction bordered on panic. I have maintained a disturbing feeling since the loss.

Monday, I checked my balance with the bank, and a deposit for more than the amount of the loss had been made by a bank wire, from my dad's broker. A small investment made for me years ago in solar energy had paid off. Almost immediately my confidence in the future has greatly increased.

I still have not figured out why I have reacted emotionally to the flow of money in and out of my accounts. But, as an engaged male, my belief has changed. Make plans for the future, and enjoy the moment, but don't live for it.

I have learned that money is a part of security, and without enough of it life is a scary proposition. I think it goes the other way as well. Too much money can make one obsessed, and greed can develop. I have seen greed overwhelm a person and take away their zest for life.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I grew up with the belief that you should live for now, and make a few plans for the future. Last January, I lost $20,000, and I was surprised that my first reaction bordered on panic. I have maintained a disturbing feeling since the loss.

Monday, I checked my balance with the bank, and a deposit for more than the amount of the loss had been made by a bank wire, from my dad's broker. A small investment made for me years ago in solar energy had paid off. Almost immediately my confidence in the future has greatly increased.

I still have not figured out why I have reacted emotionally to the flow of money in and out of my accounts. But, as an engaged male, my belief has changed. Make plans for the future, and enjoy the moment, but don't live for it.

I have learned that money is a part of security, and without enough of it life is a scary proposition. I think it goes the other way as well. Too much money can make one obsessed, and greed can develop. I have seen greed overwhelm a person and take away their zest for life.

I would buy the last part of your statement much more if you you had been rich and observed that it made you greedy and obsessed with money. Most of the truly rich people I've known have not matched that description.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you feel that you have an inner passion for your work, and the earnings makes it possible to do whatever you want to do / explore on your spare time! (even when you have money you'd have to have a passion for something)

I've always found that I'm more successful at jobs that I can feel passionate about/involved with than at jobs I'm doing strictly for the paycheck, and I can't see any reason why rich people would be remarkably different in that regard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

You need a class in economic, statistical interpretation.

. . . Meaning what? If you're so brilliant at statistical interpretation that you're recommending she go back for classes, it is now time for you to explain how she's wrong. "You need a class" translates into "I don't like what you said, but I can't refute it" to my ears if you don't say anything else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Skidmarks, don't you have some sexual fetish that needs attending somewhere?

You certainly spend a lot of time discussing my rectum. Is there something you want?

For now just try to stay on topic;

When Have You Made Enough Money?​

Okay. I'm still waiting for you to contribute something to the topic. Where is it?

 

[Bern80]

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

Then you need to reexamine your premise. Taking more from the wealthy because they have it and you claim to need it, meets no definition of 'fair' that I have ever heard.

 

[PixieStix]

It is a shame that, that is even questionable. Sometimes I am still amazed, well, I mean horrified that people in this country would even think that there should be an earning limit

 

[Dis]

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

How about I just get to make however much money I want to make, based on what I'm willing to go through to qualify myself, and everyone ELSE just keep their fucking mitts out of it?

 

[westwall]

No limits for me. I think one of the problems that does exist with "new money" is they are selfish to an extreme(not that I would ever try to make them stop) and are frequently extraordinarily rude to those who don't have a lot of money. That is simply not done by those from the "old money" group. They are universally extremely fair in business dealings and quite polite. Also they have the old sense of "noblese oblige" that the new money people have never learned. The family of a good friend of mine is ancient money and after WWII the family pretty much fed Belgium for two years. Almost every ship that landed belonged to the family and the food coming off of them was from their farms....and they never asked for payment.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a shame that, that is even questionable. Sometimes I am still amazed, well, I mean horrified that people in this country would even think that there should be an earning limit

That's what I think too, and why the President's remark was so stunning. Maybe he didn't mean it in the way that he said it, but because he has suggested it in so many ways at this point, I think he might really think that way.

Or at the very least, I do think there are some people that think there is a maximum that people should be allowed to keep of what they earn. Maybe some think nobody really earns that kind of money?

And somebody suggested that 'new money' folks are more greedy and/or selfish than 'old money' folks? I haven't seen that. It might be that a lot of 'old money' folks aren't working to increase their fortunes so much while the 'new money' folks are still earning and therefore more conscious of those who want to appropriate those earnings.

It also seems that those who see other people's money as a reserve bank to be forcefully tapped at will might be less likely to be generous with their own personal resources.

 

[Dis]

Obama's already pissing me off.. I have a health savings plan wherein I use a certain card for anything medically related.

Even though it's MY money, HE has decided what I can, and can not use that money for. I can no longer use it to purchase allergy products from my local pharmacy, but I can use it to purchase a box of bandaids. And if I do it anyway, he has decided that I will be fined.

WTF?

Keep your god damned hands off my money.

 

[rightwinger]

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

Then you need to reexamine your premise. Taking more from the wealthy because they have it and you claim to need it, meets no definition of 'fair' that I have ever heard.

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

 

[hortysir]

When I'm dead.

 

[Bern80]

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

Then you need to reexamine your premise. Taking more from the wealthy because they have it and you claim to need it, meets no definition of 'fair' that I have ever heard.

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

So you are willing to admit it really isn't a fair system?

 

[Stainmaster]

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

You need a class in economic, statistical interpretation.

. . . Meaning what? If you're so brilliant at statistical interpretation that you're recommending she go back for classes, it is now time for you to explain how she's wrong. "You need a class" translates into "I don't like what you said, but I can't refute it" to my ears if you don't say anything else.

Good grief, read post #17 again! You explain to me where the real world begins. Take a good look, and come back and defend it, but who knows what you'll find, boedicca has already been back in there re-editing! Clue; this is not university level economics!

 

[Sheldon]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

I was just pointing out the irony of how high the top rate was while our government was also railing against communism. Plus, I like how the Prezs are drawn.

If the top tax rate is raised a few percentage points, I'm not too worried. What bothers me more is inflation.

 

[westwall]

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

Then you need to reexamine your premise. Taking more from the wealthy because they have it and you claim to need it, meets no definition of 'fair' that I have ever heard.

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

The fairest way is a tax on goods purchased. That way the rich pay their "fair" share because they consume more. Please not e I did not say a VAT which is what the Obamaites want to put in place here in the states.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

Then you need to reexamine your premise. Taking more from the wealthy because they have it and you claim to need it, meets no definition of 'fair' that I have ever heard.

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

Come on buddy, you can't afford a dollar or two? You can pay anything at all? You heard what Biden said, It's time to stand up, time to get in the game.... You aren't an American? You aren't part of the team?

You need to pay your fair share. And, $0 isn't your fair share.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

I was just pointing out the irony of how high the top rate was while our government was also railing against communism. Plus, I like how the Prezs are drawn.

If the top tax rate is raised a few percentage points, I'm not too worried. What bothers me more is inflation.

Inflation should bother everyone. I would suggest though that if your income was $500,000 per year, the top rate thing, might bother you a bit more.

 

[Care4all]

when it comes to individuals working and earning their own money, it is up to them when to say enough is enough, as both Gates and Buffet and Rockefeller and Carnegie of the past have done, for themselves.

When it comes to a business....that depends on the business...a Public utility sub contracted by a company should NOT be allowed to charge us whatever the heck they want and the state or municipality that contracted such out should have a say.

on banks and the such, gvt should protect us from usery...banks should not be able to charge 50% interest rates, that's highway robbery or loan sharking...so yes, the gvt should be able to regulate such.....

the gvt should be able to determine if a corp is becoming to big to fail or a monopoly or duopoly and curb this from happening...it protects capitalism, does not hurt it, and this indirectly IS SAYING enough is enough.

so, i suppose i will check your last option in the poll, my answer is yes and no....it depends.