|
Have you considered working harder? 
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can't speak for shitholes like the Great State of Jefferson. I can only speak for the Bay Area. Punishing people in the Bay for shitheels in bumfuck seems like a really bad idea. That's not how percentages work. Besides, $250k is still a top 5% income in the Bay Area quote:The Inner Bay Area’s top 5% of households make $273,456.52 or more You are disconnected from the realities of how most Californians live, and the fact you seem unwilling to believe how little their incomes are should be proof enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
"A sinking tide makes my boat look bigger!" -- A leftist position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:"A sinking tide makes my boat look bigger!" -- A leftist position. "Taxing the top 5% of earners is theft" -- a communist position
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Actually I just realized shobobob was right, in my obsession over metrics I didn't see the simple answer: we just need to make everyone part of the top 5%!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"Taxing the top 5% of earners is theft" -- a communist position When the top 0.1% controls as much wealth as the bottom 90, going after the 9.9 in between would appear to miss the point. You seem to have a rather flawed European idea of Communism. Communism never really took off in Europe because Marx and other early Communists severely underestimated the fecundity and variability of Capitalism. On the other hand, Communism (and revolutionary change in general) has been a useful (albeit imperfect) vehicle for change in feudal societies where a small minority controlled almost everything, most people have almost nothing and a small portion of the population has an awkward in-between amount. Since the Reagan/Thatcher reforms, global capitalism has gotten greedy and created the conditions for its own demise. We have a meaningful template to work off of here. Having the bottom 90% fight the top 9.9% while the top 0.1% laughs doesn't play out too well. Especially since the type of wealth experienced by the bottom 99.9% is essentially the same, varying in degree but not in kind whereas the 0.1% has wealth of an entirely different nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of words to say fygm
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually I just realized shobobob was right, in my obsession over metrics I didn't see the simple answer: we just need to make everyone part of the top 5%! You say that like it is a joke but redistributing the wealth from the top 0.1% basically makes that entirely possible. We could have an "eutopia".
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's a whole lot of words to say fygm lol, woosh!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm less upset with California trying to tax me than I am with California trying to tax someone making slightly-more-than-half what I make. I can afford to bleed some (though it is dear) but people making less? I want other people to enjoy comfort like I have. Taxing people making less than I do seems needlessly punitive at best, "excessive" if you will. fermun posted:the brackets are at income over $250,000 for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household. Taxing people who can afford to bleed some serves the purpose of providing public services to those who can not afford to bleed, and those public services are often huge in terms of quality of life improvements, things like public transport which allows people to not own a vehicle, saving them a thousand a year, EBT providing food security, etc. I think that the taxes should be even more progressive, especially with regards to capital gains, but we're talking here about a tax that hits at 1% of income over a comfortable level. As a joint filer, if your household income doubled from 500K to 1M you'd pay a meager $5,000/year in additional tax. If you currently actually make $550k as a household, you're talking $500/year. I am fully comfortable as a member of society adding that tax burden to your current net income. Furthermore, keep in mind that this isn't a tax hike, just a continuation of the tax codes existing since 2012, so if you haven't been scraping by eating cans of cat food for dinner every night the last 4 years, you will probably be OK since you are currently paying the proposed tax rates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:You say that like it is a joke but redistributing the wealth from the top 0.1% basically makes that entirely possible. Who needs a basic understanding of statistics when you've got redistributive economics. Just don't touch what the measly millionaires have, they're barely making it! Shbobdb posted:lol, woosh! Except your framework falls apart because wealthy landowners like yourself won't do poo poo for your communist revolution. So in the meantime, I'll take taxing the top 5%, including the 0.1%, and use the taxes for California rather than waiting for a revolution that will never come. A revolution that's just a lie you tell yourself to justify the fact you've become what you used to say you hated. You already said losing your job was a no-go, kinda hard to have a communist revolution and keep b2b going (but I'm sure you'll rationalize a way how)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
I wish my wife and I made enough money so I could wring my hands about a 1% tax. We do well but whatever tax we pay at the end of the year is fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Who needs a basic understanding of statistics when you've got redistributive economics. Just don't touch what the measly millionaires have, they're barely making it! You are basically lashing out right now, which I understand. But my whole point is that you are lashing out at the wrong people. That's why I keep mentioning dekulakization. You'd rather be angry at the person from the well-to-do neighborhood who goes to the same bars and restaurants you do than be angry at the ultra-wealthy feudal lords you never see. I'm on your side but you can't shake hands with a clenched fist. I'd love to work together but because I'm evidently too ideologically impure due to matters not of my choosing I suppose we are doomed to fight each other. I'll meet you at the flagpole after first period. We can duke it out in a life-or-death struggle while the ultra-wealthy don't even recognize our existence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:You are basically lashing out right now, which I understand. But my whole point is that you are lashing out at the wrong people. That's why I keep mentioning dekulakization. You'd rather be angry at the person from the well-to-do neighborhood who goes to the same bars and restaurants you do than be angry at the ultra-wealthy feudal lords you never see. But that's the thing, I'm not lashing out, I'm pointing out that if a tax on the top 5% doesn't meet your risk/reward metric then nothing truly revolutionary ever will. Also, your constant attempts to belittle those who disagree with you are so transparent that it makes it not very rhetorically effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can only speak for
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:08
|
|
the Bay Area
|
Trabisnikof posted:But that's the thing, I'm not lashing out, I'm pointing out that if a tax on the top 5% doesn't meet your risk/reward metric then nothing truly revolutionary ever will. I think a quick peek at your post history shows that you are lashing out, which is fine. But it's also entirely worthy of derision. I'm not trying for some rhetorical slight of hand. I'm including it to emphasize what a ridiculous rear end in a top hat you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also, your constant attempts to belittle those who disagree with you are so transparent that it makes it not very rhetorically effective. sounds like it's extremely effective at convincing people that we need a straightup wealth tax he is clearly doing his community a service in this regard
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think a quick peek at your post history shows that you are lashing out, which is fine. But it's also entirely worthy of derision. I'm not trying for some rhetorical slight of hand. I'm including it to emphasize what a ridiculous rear end in a top hat you are. Ok buddy you keep telling me how I feel as a way to ignore everything else I said while shifting the goal posts further and further away from your repeated claims $250k a year isn't enough to be comfortable in California or the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ok buddy you keep telling me how I feel as a way to ignore everything else I said while shifting the goal posts further and further away from your repeated claims $250k a year isn't enough to be comfortable in California or the Bay Area. How do you place metrics on "comfort"? You seem big on quantifying things. Have you read WE? Do you secretly try to create a moral math? Things in my household were rough at ~250K. I wouldn't want to make things rougher on people making less than me. Seems like a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Meanwhile Apple has billions parked offshore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Is everything south of the stupid Bay Area Mexico now? Like did I vote for Nieto instead of Obama? It's pretty telling that you only talk about NorCal, and that you simplify it down to Bay Area and 'Jefferson.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Things in my household were rough at ~250K. Shbobdb posted:And I actually have three mortgages. I'm at a loss for words. Trabisnikof posted:Right? I'd suggest using your income to hire an accountant rather than getting upset at California for trying to tax you. Middle-class people have to be careful to not hire too many professionals, they're supposed to do most things for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Is everything south of the stupid Bay Area Mexico now? Like did I vote for Nieto instead of Obama? It's pretty telling that you only talk about NorCal, and that you simplify it down to Bay Area and 'Jefferson.' i don't know about him but personally ive taken to referring to anything south of san jose as aztlan (or hell, if we're talking bakersfield) Doc Hawkins posted:I'm at a loss for words. two mortgages are a pretty common situation in the bay just because of the insane housing costs, have an apartment near a bart station somewhere in the east bay (or fremont if you hate yourself/are indian)(daly city if you're asian) that you live in monday-friday and then a house for the family somewhere further out. i know a few people who commute from LA to the bay on a weekly basis. tack on a cabin somewhere in the woods (also common) and you've got yourself 3 mortages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Things in my household were rough at ~250K. lol  As has been mentioned already, 250k per year is a top 5% income in the Bay Area, and is more than enough to live in a manner that your average Bay Area resident would consider "comfortable", even if you don't personally feel the same way. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. semper wifi posted:have an apartment near a bart station somewhere in the east bay (or fremont if you hate yourself/are indian)(daly city if you're asian) that you live in monday-friday and then a house for the family somewhere further out. i know a few people who commute from LA to the bay on a weekly basis. tack on a cabin somewhere in the woods (also common) and you've got yourself 3 mortages. Ah yes, the old three houses lifestyle. A completely normal state of affairs, as is commuting 400 miles for work. I just bought my third mansion myself, but i'm feeling quite poor because my BMW is a couple years old. How does a common serf like me survive in these trying times? My jet can't even get to Barcelona in under 12 hours 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:two mortgages are a pretty common situation in the bay just because of the insane housing costs, have an apartment near a bart station somewhere in the east bay (or fremont if you hate yourself/are indian)(daly city if you're asian) that you live in monday-friday and then a house for the family somewhere further out. i know a few people who commute from LA to the bay on a weekly basis. tack on a cabin somewhere in the woods (also common) and you've got yourself 3 mortages. Somehow, in my five years living there, I was able to not meet anyone who owns a private cabin. How common would you say it is? What percent of people would you guess have one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:i don't know about him but personally ive taken to referring to anything south of san jose as aztlan (or hell, if we're talking bakersfield) Why, yes, North and South California don't care for each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:i don't know about him but personally ive taken to referring to anything south of san jose as aztlan (or hell, if we're talking bakersfield) Lmao, the wealth bubble/struggle is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:Meanwhile Apple has billions parked offshore. People in this thread were advising our UMC buddy to invest in an accountant for the exact same reason. Also holy poo poo this derail :popcorn:
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:In my area its a yahoo group that one of the more enterprising neighbors had set up a decade ago, and that's what stuck. Stuff on there is just things like *looks at threads*.. Oh, thank you so much for the rec! Your mentioning ISPs pinged something else for me. When Comcast went entirely down for a portion of my neighborhood for five days, we used Nextdoor (on phones and at work, obviously) to coordinate the information we had. It was awesome to hear from the one person who'd managed to talk to a repairman at the pole, because that person found out what was really broken and why they were telling us every four hours "It'll be up again in four hours." (Answer: they had no idea when they'd be able to fix it, because a major component had to be ordered.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Also that book should be available at pretty much every library in the region if you just want a sneek peak
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Dan Savage's column this week talked about the terribleness of Prop 60.quote:While we’re on the subject of porn: If you look at Small Hands’ Twitter account—or the Twitter account of any porn performer working today—you’ll notice that most have “NO ON 60” as their avatar. Proposition 60 is a ballot measure in California that is ostensibly about protecting porn performers by requiring them to use condoms and mandates penalties for companies and performers that don’t.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Is everything south of the stupid Bay Area Mexico now? Like did I vote for Nieto instead of Obama? It's pretty telling that you only talk about NorCal, and that you simplify it down to Bay Area and 'Jefferson.' Lol. SoCal. Enjoy your golf course and getting HIV from some closeted sailor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Ah yes, the old three houses lifestyle. A completely normal state of affairs, as is commuting 400 miles for work. I just bought my third mansion myself, but i'm feeling quite poor because my BMW is a couple years old. How does a common serf like me survive in these trying times? My jet can't even get to Barcelona in under 12 hours
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Shame it's going to pass by like 80%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Shame it's going to pass by like 80%. A lot of San Francisco-based performers are freaking out about what to do if that happens. Right now the only other big porn production city is Tampa Bay, and that's a hell of a move to have to go through since your state decided to shut down your industry. (It also makes you wonder what Kink.com is going to do, since they have that expensive piece of real estate that's a huge part of their brand.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
e_angst posted:A lot of San Francisco-based performers are freaking out about what to do if that happens. Right now the only other big porn production city is Tampa Bay, and that's a hell of a move to have to go through since your state decided to shut down your industry. (It also makes you wonder what Kink.com is going to do, since they have that expensive piece of real estate that's a huge part of their brand.) When this passes, my money is on the Industry moving to Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Basically, tax the rich 90%. Literally the only thing needed to be said on the topic. Anyway, those who live in the better part of the state (LA County) make sure to vote yes on measure M to ensure we have a even better metro system when we get the olympics again (Because none of the northern part of the state could ever handle 3 olympics let alone one  you poo poo NIMBY fygm'ers).More rail More connections to other counties Better freeways (but mostly better public transit) Forceholy posted:When this passes, my money is on the Industry moving to Vegas. It's already in arizona. incoherent fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I'd like to vote yes on that, but then I remember the last time they asked for money then hiked fares anyway. The Olympics though... I'm wondering if it would hulk out the ridiculous metro housing prices more, or just speed the collapse of the bubble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
incoherent posted:you poo poo NIMBY fygm'ers
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Rah! posted:As has been mentioned already, 250k per year is a top 5% income in the Bay Area Anyway obviously 250k is plenty to be comfortable on in the bay area unless you want to own a house in an affluent neighborhood with better than average schools that's close-ish to your work. Ron Jeremy posted:To be fair, you really should have at least as many parking spots as units. Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 22:31
|
|
