At my daughter's gymnastics class, I sit with several moms who have kids in the class, and we have gotten to be pretty chummy, and look forward to our weekly chats while our kids are learning to do cartwheels and walk on the balance beam and all that.
In our little group is me, three black women, and one Asian. This week, the conversation was mostly on politics.
We got around to who voted for who and why, and I thought it might be worth sharing some of the comments, because I remember Irami posting after the election that the democratic party had lost too many mothers this time. These is some first-hand comments that might shed some light on why.
Background: Socio-economics on all four of us are probably pretty similar. We all live in the same general area, not the same exact neighborhoods, but within a 10 mile range of each other. We are all in solid middle class suburban areas. Our kids all go to public schools, not the same ones, my child is in a different county from the others. The other moms are in Jefferson county, and that school system is generally regarded as being better than my own. One other mom is stay-at-home like me, the others work. We're all married and have kids. All of us voted for Bush.
All of us are involved in our churches, Lecia is the music director for hers. All said they respected Bush for his outspokeness about his faith. I asked if the fact that Kerry was Catholic entered into their minds, and Jeri (who I love to death, she actually talks more than me which is a rarity) said: "It doesn't matter if you're Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Pentecostal, whatever, I don't care. But I'm not going to vote for a man that doesn't respect my faith." The general consensus was that Kerry only talked about religion to garner votes, whereas Bush was a man who really lived his faith. They don't like the direction the courts have taken - the challenges on the Pledge of Allegiance, the removal of the 10 commandments from courthouses, etc. - they feel like Christianity is under attack, and they think Bush is more likely to protect their rights to worship.
Another big issue - abortion. These moms are pro-life. I got the feeling that they could accept a candidate who was pro-choice to a degree, but Kerry not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion, which Lecia described as "sticking a pair of scissors into a baby's brain" really hurt him.
They didn't like Teresa Heinz-Kerry. I don't know how much this influenced their vote, but they did bring it up and talk about it. They found her rude, and "mean" and didn't want her as a first lady. I brought up the comment about Laura Bush never having a real job - which she later retracted saying she had forgotten Laura Bush worked as a teacher and school librarian, and the comment made, again by Jeri was "What does some ketchup millionaire know about real work, anyway?"
The war only came up briefly, and we got sidetracked into talking about all our family members that were in the military. I never found out how many supported the war, or thought Iraq had WMD's, or any other issues. I know that all of us but one has a close family member in the military: either a father, brother-in-law, cousin, or nephew.
I was already thinking about posting the tidbits of the talk on hatrack, so I decided to get down to brass tacks and outright ask a question. I asked "So why did you vote Republican? I mean, aren't minorities supposed to be the democrat's base?"
It was the incomparable Jeri who spoke first. I'll try to quote this as exactly as I can. "What has the democratic party ever done for me? I get up every morning and go to work and can't hardly pay my house note for the taxes. You think I want to put the democrats in charge so they can raise them even more?"
Lecia then said, sarcastically, "But the democrats only want to tax the rich, you know."
To which she said "I'm the rich! I don't live in the projects so I'm rich. When he talks about the rich, he means me! I can't hardly pay my bills, but I'm rich.
My Mamma and Grandmamma always say 'vote Democrat, vote Democrat, democrats care about you' They been voting democrat all their life and they still living in Ensley" (referring to a high crime, low income area of the city that is predominantly black)
"Didn't anyone help me, didn't anyone care about me - I got out of there because I went to school and I got off my butt and went to work. They still sitting there, waiting on some democrat to give them a new house." At this everybody laughed, and then we got started on something else, (Louisiana gumbo and whose mother makes it more spicy, to be exact) and then it was time to get our kids and go.
Now, I didn't start this thread so people could attack the views of these women - they aren't here to explain themselves or elaborate on their statements as I've reported them. I started it because I thought it would be interesting for you to "eavesdrop" on a conversation. Whether or not the women are correct about any of this isn't the issue - the issue is they think they are correct, and they voted accordingly.
So, can the democratic party ever win back the south - which is heavily populated with women just like these? If they do, they will have to address the concerns of these women - they care about protecting their way of worship that they think is under attack, they care about abortion, and they care about how much money is cut from their checks. They don't vote democratic because their parents and grandparents always did. The democratic party needs to address them - see to their needs, if it hopes to win them back. Three of the five of us voted for Bill Clinton. (no I wasn't one)
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
That is just WOW.
msquared
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. So the Democratic Party can either surrender principle and embrace these women, or reject them.
*shrug* A party that embraces them will lose my vote, I'm afraid.
[ November 17, 2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
So, if the democratic party came to a "softer" stance on abortion, maybe banning late term abortions, and made it clear that the rights of people to worship was a priority for them and that they respected those rights, and adopted a tax policy that didn't lean heavily on the middle and upper class - you wouldn't support them, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. Interestingly, I think the Democratic Party has for the most part already done all these things, but your four female friends have been suckered by the Republican machine into not recognizing it. (Note that I think tax policy will ALWAYS lean heavily on the upper and middle class, and should. If anything, I believe we aren't taxing the upper class heavily enough anymore.)
[ November 17, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I know this is going to sound confrontational, but what would they say if they found out Bush rarely goes to church?
EDIT: I take back the above, it appears he does go to some churches, and it is unclear if he goes often or not.
The bit about "Who's rich, I'm rich!" Is a classic misconception in our society. There's some silly stat that 40% of us think we are in the top 5% of the income bracket (or something similarly silly). The easy question would be whether she makes over 200k, because that was the cutoff Kerry had long been promoting as the line to raise taxes.
I think the whole "worked my butt off" argument SHOULD be taken notice by Democrats.
-Bok
[ November 17, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think I know where she's coming from with the "I'm rich" argument. People whose household incomes are 60,000 plus do get taxed very heavily, but 60,000 doesn't buy you a rich lifestyle.
They see themselves as struggling to take care of their families, paying a high mortgage so they can live in a good school district, and their 60,000 doesn't go very far. Yet, compared to family members that still live in places like Ensley, they are "rich." And those family members don't understand the struggle to make ends meet on a salary like that, so when the family members say the "rich should pay more" they are referring to people like Jeri.
Jeri doesn't see herself as rich - she was reacting to the way others perceive her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"People whose household incomes are 60,000 plus do get taxed very heavily, but 60,000 doesn't buy you a rich lifestyle."
Oddly, Christy and I make that much, but I don't feel like we're laboring under an unreasonable tax burden -- except our property tax, which in Wisconsin is pretty ridiculous, but that's not the federal government's fault. Perhaps part of it is that we're living well within our means, having found an area with a decent school district that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for housing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What have the Democrats done for her? Well, lets see, a good chunk of the tax cuts that have occurred so far were parts of democratic tax cut plans, and almost certainly all of the ones which benefited her. So every tax cut she's received under the Bush administration would likely have happened under a democratic administration.
Actually, the Dems also had a big cash back proposal in that got cut, so she would likely have gotten more. Oh, and while Bush has no plans to pass more tax cuts, there are oodles of tax cuts from the originals which haven't gone into effect yet, and most benefit the rich (where rich means much more than her income) almost exclusively.
Or then there's property taxes. Those're local/state, so I don't know which parties are influencing them how on that level, but I can tell you why they're unlikely to be cut anytime in the near future: the state programs most funded by property taxes are those that have been most impacted by the additional federal bureaucracy Bush has been forcing onto the states and localities.
If she's going to vote with her pocketbook, she should reconsider which side has her pocketbook in mind.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh, and Tom - the democratic party hasn't at all tried to win pro-life voters.
As for the taxes, you're right in that the tax burden will always lean on the middle and upper class, I should have worded that differently.
I think the main concern is that they see themselves (or at least Jeri did) as having gotten out of bad circumstances by hard work. Now, she's making good money, has a husband and nice home and lives in a great school district and she is still struggling to make ends meet. She doesn't want to pay more taxes, and thinks that democrats in power will mean higher taxes for people in her situation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except she's not voting with her pocketbook. It sounds like she's voting with her church, and rationalizing the pocketbook thing after the fact. And until Democrats start sacrificing babies to Jesus on the steps of the capitol, I don't think the party has a snowball's chance in Hell -- pun intended -- of out-pandering the Republicans on that issue.
---
"She doesn't want to pay more taxes, and thinks that democrats in power will mean higher taxes for people in her situation."
Then she is ignorant, and did not do enough research. The Democratic Party does not need to change its policies, then, but rather its means of communicating those policies.
[ November 17, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But the Democrats don't need to outdo Republicans, they just need to stop being actively anti-Christian, which a great number of the more vocal Democrats are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you name a vocally anti-Christian Democratic politician?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, Tom, if you think your burden is not so bad, you can take up some of mine anytime.
$60,000 was a figure I just threw out for illustration - I don't know how much these people make. I also don't know what figures are considered "middle-class" or "upper middle class" or any of that.
Fugu - you may be right in your analysis - but obviously that information didn't get communicated to the voters in a convincing way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I also don't know what figures are considered 'middle-class' or 'upper middle class' or any of that."
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that most of the people who voted for Bush don't know the answer to that question, either. Heck, I imagine most people who voted don't know the answer to that question. *laugh*
[ November 17, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
So what are they? And who decides what the limits are?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe a figure Kerry repeated was that his proposal would only raise taxes on those earning over $300,000 a year. While one can debate whether or not that's a good thing, it pretty clearly wouldn't apply to this woman.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Answered my own question at factcheck.org. There is no standard definition of middle class, but the national median income was around $43,000 in 2003. for their purposes, factcheck called middle income $25,000-$75,000.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think my American Government had rich at 70,000 or something stupid. Personally, I'm not much for punishing the rich and making them pay more for their basic income. It's the bonuses that should be taxed into nonexistence.
My dad's power plant had a round of layoffs that saved the company about 2 million a year. The same year, they gave the CEO a 10 million dollar bonus for not retireing. O_o
I've never understood the Democratic idea that people who did well for themselves should have a large chunk of their money taken away from them. Then we should give that money to people who can't get off the couch and get a job.
The poor are usually only poor temporarily. Trash are poor forever, no matter how much money we throw at them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It wouldn't surprise me at all if some or all of these women made more than $75,000 when you consider the median price for a home in the areas around the gymnastics studio is probably really close to $200,000 or maybe even more, depending on the neighborhood.
I know what Kerry said, by the way, but I don't trust campaign promises by ANY candidate. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone in the upper class (which we're defining as $75,000+) to think that Republicans are more likely to NOT raise taxes on them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The government defines "classes" essentially through the creation of tax brackets. In reality, though, what constitutes "middle class" depends heavily on the cost of living in any given area. (This is why people who meet the federal standard of "upper class" -- $200K+ -- often self-identify as merely "upper middle class;" when you factor in the cost of their homes and cars and other lifestyle elements, they often feel like they're just "scraping by" with two SUVs. George Bush the elder, in the '80s, once defined "middle class" as $50,000 or higher, at a time when 80% of the country made less than that -- but I suspect that to live in his neighborhood on $50K would be difficult indeed.)
In general, the "middle class" starts at around $33K household income for a family of four. The "upper middle class" starts around $60K for a family of four. And the "rich" are generally those making $200K or more.
There's a category for the "super-rich" being floated out there, to distinguish the well-off from the ones who genuinely don't ever need to worry about money except for the purposes of scorekeeping, but I don't think the government recognizes that in any way.
The best breakdown I've seen categorizes the "upper class" as the top 3% of wage earners, the "super-rich" as the top .5%, the "middle class" as being the next 50% of the break-down, the "working class" as the next 20%, and the genuine "poor" as the remainder. This actually appears to be a useful metric when measuring financial "inequality," especially when income levels at those points are adjusted for inflation and cost of living.
[ November 17, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
AR -- did you ever wonder about reasons the poor are usually only poor temporarily?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Usually, they just had some kind of set back, a layoff, a disablity, and now they've worked their way back out of it. I'm just trying to point out that I believe there are two different kinds of poor. One deserves our help. The other doesn't want help.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Usually, they just had some kind of set back, a layoff, a disablity, and now they've worked their way back out of it."
Nope. Statistically, it's because they stop being college students or die of old age.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
With the Democrats, you pay through the nose up front for the programs and initiatives.
With the Republicans, you pay through the nose later on, usually with a fair chunk of interest tacked on.
Whether it is now or later, both groups just basically tax us as far as they can without driving themselves out of office. There is a game played with "will they squeal if we charge them 26%... okay, what about 25.5%... 25.35%???"
And let's face it, any time they cut away at the budget, they still mandate the programs go on, leaving states, counties and municipalities to foot the bill.
But the ladies were right, for the time being at least, what have the Democrats done that speaks positively to them?
At least with the Republicans, they can point to some hopes of protecting their faith and stance on the abortion issue. Of course, there probably won't be too much done on either of those... I'm afraid that it is just lip service.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Can you name a vocally anti-Christian Democratic politician?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that generally if you talk to say, the Campus Democrats, they come off as being very anti Christian. Heck, I went to a callout for the ACLU which talked very openly about going out to protest to "shut up those pro-life Christians." It's very easy to believe that your politicians are anti Christian when many of their most vocal supporters that you meet every day are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A good question to ask, then, might be why the Republicans aren't reaching out to those people.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:The top fifth of U.S. households, those with earnings of more than $84,000, pay 82.5 percent of federal income taxes and two thirds of all federal taxes.
Oh wait, considering how much of the country's tax burden I bear, I don't know if it's worth celebrating or not....
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Why should they? Both parties simply give up on certain groups. Democrats give up on the upper class, Republicans give up on the minority of anti Christian voters, and they are a minority, just a vocal one. The problem is that that minority drives away a lot of Christians that would be swing voters and only needed one issue to drive them to one side or the other.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Democrats give up on the upper class, Republicans give up on the minority of anti Christian voters, and they are a minority, just a vocal one."
Intriguingly, the Democrats are not overwhelmingly rejected by the upper class as much as you might think. Nor, for that matter, is every atheist a Democrat; I believe the Pixiest is in fact passionately anti-Democrat, because she hates Social Security more than she hates Jesus. *laugh*
But yeah, I'll agree that the Republicans, beginning in the early '80s, were smart enough under Reed's tutelage to identify that Christian bias was a major motivator and began pandering to religious groups far more effectively than the Democrats did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whenever Slash talks about how much he makes, he does it with class. I wonder how he does that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's because we can't see him flashing the bling-bling over the Internet. But I hear when he does it in person, he pulls his shirt open with one diamond-encrusted hand to reveal chest hair gilded with the purest gold. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I rather suspect, Belle, that there could also be a sentence which reads something like "those with earnings of more than $200,000, pay 75 percent of federal income taxes and three fifths of all federal taxes."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tax the rich. Wealth should be used to better society.
I'm all for higher taxes, as long as there is strict accountability for the way they're used.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's because we can't see him flashing the bling-bling over the Internet. But I hear when he does it in person, he pulls his shirt open with one diamond-encrusted hand to reveal chest hair gilded with the purest gold.
That was my and Lead's favorite part of his visit to Dallas.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
From my perspective, Bush's fiscal policies are making it so that the tax burden on your children and your children's children will be incredibly oppressive compared to what we have now.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not classlessly flaunting anything, kat despite what you think.
In fact, I make nothing. Well, I have made $300 in the last four and a half years from my writing. And maybe a total of $500 in the last year from selling items on Ebay.
I have a husband who works very hard to provide for our family - and I happen to love him and I'm proud of him.
I was trying to make a point about the tax burden - not talk about how much my family makes, because quite frankly, you don't have any idea how much we really make or how we live. I could just be making a point, and in fact we make less than $40,000 a year. Or maybe we make over $100,000 a year. You don't know - and neither does anybody else. In fact, a lot of people look at our house and think we make quite a bit. What they don't know is my husband built the house, doing much of the work himself, and consquently we paid way less than market value. That's the only reason we have the size house we do in the neighborhood we live in.
Be careful when you snarkily try to judge people when you don't know the facts. If you really want to know (and I can't think why you would) you can get some of them. My husband is a firefighter for the city of birmingham you can go look up the salary it's public record. He's a lieutenant with 10 years of experience. That info will get you his exact salary.
That doesn't tell you the whole story, because we also own a business that supplements our income, but it will give you a starting point.
You'll find that lietenant's salary doesn't even approach $84,000.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't need to know. That's the point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* I don't think kat meant either of us, Belle, and we both listed our salaries here. Unless she's one of those people who takes salaries really personally. We have one of those here at work, and I've never understood her aversion to the concept that maybe not everyone makes the same amount.
[ November 17, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Random question: How high are taxes in America compared to Canada? I was always under the impression they were higher in Canada, especially factoring in sales taxes.
Is it the fact that although they are higher here free health care, etc, helps ease the blow?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just can't help thinking that Bush's current policies are not really benefiting the poor and middle class. Most of his tax cuts are aimed at people who really don't need tax cuts. So it seems that a lot of programs are being cut like to the library (which is why I can't seem to get a job there. When I ask about it they tell me there is a hiring freeze) or to museums and various social programs I unfortunetly need. Like section 8 housing is being threaten with cuts. I don't know if you know what a disaster this will be for a lot of low income people, including me. The only way I can survive on my crappy job is because my rent is cheap. Of course one could simply just say something irratately cynical, but, if it helps to keep people from becoming homeless and frees up a large chunk of income for other purchases isn't that better than complaining about homelessness and yet cutting things to help them to benefit people who don't really need it in my eyes? There is no way I could ever vote for these people. No way...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People talking about how much they make when it isn't necessary for the conversation reminds me of an Edith Wharton or Jane Austen novel.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, the top 5th may pay the top 82.5% of taxes, but I bet (as fugu alluded to) that the top 10% of the top 5th pay 90% of the 82.5%.
It sounds good, but the reality is, you simply aren't being gouged as badly as the pro-free market heritage foundation would have you think. It's that cherry-picking thing again.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. See, in this case I think both specific incomes mentioned were relevant to the conversation. And since no one here is comparing penis size or the equivalent, I don't see the problem.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I dont' understand people who get twisted out of shape over it either. When I worked at UAB, all salaries were posted, and I knew several co-workers who went and looked up what everyone in our department made.
I didn't because it didn't seem productive - all it did was give them something to bitch about.
Except in the cases of professional athletes and the corporate fat cats, I generally believe that people who make more than I do(or did, rather) deserved to. Usually it's because they either work harder, have more education, or took more risks, like starting a business. If I wanted more money I could get it - by either furthering my education (which I'm doing now) or by working harder.
If I can presume to speak for her, I think that was part of what my friend Jeri was trying to say when we were talking. Instead of sitting around whining, get out and make something of yourself. She did, and she is frustrated with people who continue in their circumstances without putting forth the same kind of effort.
Right or wrong, a lot of people view the democratic party as the entitlement party. It's the party that will give you money for doing nothing. That's the perception. And once you do make something of yourself, the democrats punish you by taxing you to death to support the people who don't want to work.
Now, I know it's not that simplistic, but my point is the democratic party hasn't done a very good job communicating what they are really about to voters. They have a perception, like the one above, and until the democratic party changes that they are in really big trouble. As has already been shown, you need more than the left coast and the liberal northeast to win the presidency.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"They have a perception, like the one above, and until the democratic party changes that they are in really big trouble."
Oh, I agree. The problem is, though, I don't know how the Dems can do any better of a job by arguing the facts; the facts were tried, and weren't convincing enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know it's off topic. I'm just musing now.
Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it?
I'm sure it's a product of training. When I was growing up, of the big topics, we discussed sex and health fairly openly, race and politics during discussions dedicated to it only, and money in budget sessions alone.
[ November 17, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I should add, that most of my circle of friends and acquaintances are firefighter families too. we pretty much know what everybody makes - like in the case of my best friend she is a public school teacher and her husband's a firefighter.
If I wanted to I could find out their exact income, and I already know what it is approximately since I've been looking at public school salaries myself.
It's just not a big deal in my family or social environment. When someone mentions they got a raise, usually the first question is "How much?" I don't see salary as something to be kept secret or ashamed of or hidden away so you don't offend somebody. It's part of life, and I'm used to talking about it.
If that's not the case for most people, and they do see me talking about salaries as rude, then I can only say rudeness was not my intent and hope they understand.
My post back to kat was snarky in its own right - and a bit immature. I guess I was reacting to what I thought was a stab directed at me. If she just thinks discussing salaries in general is rude and wasn't attacking me, then I'm sorry. We have different definitions of what is rude.
*shrug*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, this is what I am trying to do...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it?"
It may be, Katie, that your family made enough to make it really gauche, whereas none of the rest of us came from a family rich enough for it to be gauche enough to mention. j/k
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it?
Nope. It was rude to flaunt your salary if your only purpose was to make somebody else feel bad, but just discussing it, in a context like this, where we were talking about lines between classes and tax burdens - not at all rude.
I have outright asked friends of mine, teachers, what they make, when I was considering a new career. None of them ever minded telling me. I've had people ask me our salary, and how much we paid for our house, and it never bothered me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:whereas none of the rest of us came from a family rich enough for it to be gauche enough to mention.
Man, iss that ever the truth in my case!
Sometimes when I think about how my children are growing up, compared to what I had...I don't know whether to just fall on my knees and be thankful or pray that they don't become spoiled.
I AM lucky. Lucky to have a husband who loves us, and works so hard so I can be here with the kids. (Who are chasing the cat right now, I should probably go intervene)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, who knows. It's possible I got it out of Gone with the Wind. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know it's probably a southern thing - you know us nosy southerners - we are always in everybody's business. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was just thinking it was a Southern thing to politely avoid such subjects. I know my attitude about money came from my mother, and she was the Southern one.
[ November 17, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My parents won't even tell me how much they make, and elsewhere money is completely taboo so it's not just a southern thing. It may be a southern and British thing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think it's regional so much as cultural.
My husband and a lot of our friends we socialize with are public servants - that all make the same thing. My mom was a military wife, everybody knew what pay grade everybody was. Then she was a cop's wife, same thing.
But, strange, I am trying to think of people from church, and other places that aren't public servants, and I still don't see the taboo you're talking about.
A common conversation in church "Bill just got a new job."
"Really? Making good money?"
"Starts at $50k."
"Isnt' that a raise for you guys?"
"Yeah, it's gonna be about $500 more take home each month."
I made up the names and numbers of course, but that conversation would not be considered unusual.
*shrug* Dunno. People are different in what they consider rude I guess.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The above conversation is almost inconceivable to me. I don't have the foggiest idea what any of my friends, siblings, or the people at church make, except for one that is a school teacher. We discussed it when we talked about the differences in school teacher pay between states.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
kat, I was raised the same way. I don't even like asking how much my husband makes (we still have pretty separate finances at the moment). Discussing salaries with a stranger seems shockingly rude to me.
But then, I'd imagine my attitude about it seems shockingly ignorant to others, so I guess it's a draw. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I know what Kerry said, by the way, but I don't trust campaign promises by ANY candidate. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone in the upper class (which we're defining as $75,000+) to think that Republicans are more likely to NOT raise taxes on them.
That's the problem. Maybe the problem isn't with Belle, maybe the problem isn't with the Democrats, maybe the problem is with Democracy, because you have to trust.
If you can't trust the candidates, what are they doing for a year campaigning. Kerry said, ad nauseum, that he would only raise the taxes on those making 200,000 or more. If you make 60,000 dollars a year, you don't fit into that catagory.
If you are predisposed to not trusting a politician says, on principle, then democracy can't work.
All elections presume trust. If you don't trust politicians, a lot of times it's not the politicians fault, or the fault of government. I had no reason to believe that Kerry was going to do anything more or less than he said he was going to do. I feel lied to about WMDs. I never got the feeling Reagan lied, Iran Contra was a matter of falling asleep at the wheel. When Bush I said, "Read my lips, No new taxes," then raised the taxes, it wasn't a lie. The man tried and tried, but he had to pay for a war and restrain the deficit. He honestly tried and I'm not going to fault him.
Clinton lied.
He lied about sex. Bush II lied about taking money out of the social security "lock-box" and something fell apart with Hussein's massive stockpiles of WMDs. I also think he knows he underfunded NCLB, he just doesn't care. But apparently he gets a pass on lying and sloppy work because he is a man of faith.
If you don't expect to be able to trust your politicians, the race is already lost because democracy is only possible if you can trust the candidates. Or maybe people's faith only extends to the divine. If so, is that real faith?
Voting for Bush because he was a Christian, even if he is merely a nominal one, isn't something the Democrats really can beat. Contrary to how liberals are perceived, in the important matters, we don't want you to do x for him because he is the same kind as we are. That's the kind of bias that causes all of the problems that blight American history.
About Kerry, the interesting question is, what drives a guy who has been definitively rich most of his life to be a Democrat? It sure you that it isn't his tax interest.
There is going to be some heat on Christians. Hopefully it'll split their lock on the Republican party. Good Christians need to say that you can't take the high road on "moral values," with a high-handed neglect when it comes to feeding the poor. If Bush is the model Christian, then Christian principles deserve all of the pressure they are going to receive. The same can be said for Islam, and Islamic terrorists.
I'm willing to give a little on abortion, then again, so was John Kerry. I'm willing to give on gay marriage, then again, so was John Kerry. These are reasonable disagreements. But if you tell me that your christian principles won't let you fund education or pay off the national debt, I'm not going to have respect for those principles, and you can't expect people to pretend to have respect for those principles.
[ November 17, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is one of those where the other side is totally not going to get it.
I can't imagine someone not knowing how much their parents make or their husband makes. When I was a pre-teen my parents sat me down with a pay stub and talked to me about how much money we made and how taxes and insurance were cut out, etc. as a way of teaching me about finances.
I've always known what my husband makes, but then we do not have separate finances.
It's not as if we sit around and compare "Hey, do you make more than me?", it's just a part of life that isn't hidden away like it's something to be ashamed of. It comes up in conversations like the one above - it's just thrown out there as a fact.
I guess I can see why some people may be self-conscious, or maybe feel like others may look at them differently if they knew how much they made, but I don't really see why such a thing should matter among friends and especially family members.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I don't know how much my parents make, or how much debt they're in. Actually, I'm not even entirely sure how much they owe me. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I guess it's just cultural differences. Interesting.
For me, talking about money - especially when you're not all dirt-poor college students or else young and pretty-much on the same level - is an almost shockingly intimate conversation. I knew how much Michael made, and that felt more like priviliged information than doctor's results or the age of his parents.
I'm going to have to think about this. It doesn't extend everywhere - talking about insurance rates, plane ticket prices, and delighting in getting things on sale feels fine. Relative changes in income and prices seems okay too - everyone can relate to "more" and "less". Exact changes in income and the exact price of your house feels taboo. Hmmm.
[ November 17, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But if you tell me that your christian principles won't let you fund education or pay off the national debt, I'm not going to have respect for those principles.
Don't tell me you don't respect my principles and base your statement on the fact that I vote conservatively or that my faith influences my vote. People who vote conservative don't hate the poor and kids in school, or care nothing about issues like the national debt. I'm getting sick of that attitude. We just have a different view about how to fix the problems. Just because I don't subscribe to your view on how to fix it doesn't mean I don't care about the problems as much as you do.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Here, here, Belle!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, I disagree that the Democrats actually presented their facts well. I personally think they did a horrible job of it.
You can blame the people themselves for their ignorance of the policies, but as you said yourself, the women Belle had her conversation with *were* ignorant of the policies and stances that you thought they should know. None of those women appear to be dumb or deliberately ignorant. But the fact is, they *didn't* get the message with the "facts" that you think would have changed their minds. I just can't justify puting that entirely on the women, I have to blame the party too.
*now continuing the derail about money* I grew up thinking my family was poor. My mother truly did live in poverty at points during her childhood. But my family was not poor at all, even with only my father's income. Day to day budgeting issues were discussed, but until I filled out my financial aid applications for college I had no idea what he made(and as a result I was summarily turned down for all financial aid but scholarships).
My parents have many good friends in their social circles, who I always percieved as being richer than us (and my parents perpetuated this notion) The facts of the matter are far, far different than my percieved reality goes. They are actually probably richer than many of their friends who have higher standards of living because of the amounts they have squirrelled away over the years. But, was it ever talked truly talked about? And was it ever brought up in social situations? Absolutely not.
The disconnect is also partially in the way my mother and father communicated and handled money. Dad handled the big things and designated the savings etc. but, Mom handled the day to day purchases. I think there was actually always plenty there, we never came remotely close to starving. But now I realise though that she could use the money she had for the month until it ran out, because the savings had *already* been taken care of, something I didn't realize as a child. So occasionally running out of money until my dad's next paycheck wasn't the calamity it sounded like to my childlike ears, where it perpetuated the notion that we were actually "poor".
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<continuing the derailment - sorry>
That makes sense about the money attitudes being different. I've been on a few dates where he will tell me how much he makes exactly (as a professional), and I'm thinking, "Oh my stars, I just met you!"
My brother and his wife talked about money on their first date, and both of them have mentioned that conversation as their first real bonding moment, when they felt that flash of affection and connection that comes with intimate conversations.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
As an amendment to my last post, a lot of the problems come from partisan hack spinners who have shamefully elevated the artful lie.
_____________ Belle,
quote:People who vote conservative don't hate the poor and kids in school,
You've said this before:
quote:Why are we so against successful people and communities having better things than poorer ones? Isn't that the point of success?
I was so astonished that I saved it on my desktop. Do you not agree with this anymore?
Back to your last post:
quote: or care nothing about issues like the national debt.
They should. Bush cared nothing about issues like the actual Iraqi sentiment on the ground, and he should have.
quote:I'm getting sick of that attitude. We just have a different view about how to fix the problems. Just because I don't subscribe to your view on how to fix it doesn't mean I don't care about the problems as much as you do.
If you are neglecting your responsiblity, I barely care if you are getting sick of it. You can talk all you want about voluntary private giving replacing taxes, the question is why? Why should voluntary private giving replace taxes, if not to pay less. Has your civic duty changed? No. But you want to pick and choose individually something that really isn't up for you to pick and choose individually. I'll take one of those bold stands and say that public education is an unswerving priority. Period. And in a privatized system, children are systemically going to be left behind. The only benefit is that it's not going to be your children. You can talk about private giving all you want, but if you are serious about educating all Americans, it has to be done through America. If you are serious about social security for all Americans, it has to be done through America, and this isn't up to anyone's wants or taste.
Having an unemployment rate is permissable. It's not necessary that everyone who wants to work has a job. I think private sector is the appropriate place for jobs But education and social security, where the goals and the mores and the interests are essentially public, are matters of the America.
[ November 17, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did no one else get this ingrained in them? That it's absolutely not polite to talk about how much your family makes? And the more your family makes, the more gauche it is to talk about it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. It was rude to flaunt your salary if your only purpose was to make somebody else feel bad, but just discussing it, in a context like this, where we were talking about lines between classes and tax burdens - not at all rude.
I read it more or less like this. I have specifically talked about my salary (though it is not large) and about the value of my house, and I hope nobody thinks me rude for it. I do feel a bit hesitant when I do, but not so much because I believe it is actually rude, but because I'm afraid someone might think it is.
I didn't take Belle's post in that vein as rude.
-o-
What I find interesting, Belle--to get back on topic--is that you report a conversation containing a lot of inaccurate views of the democratic agenda, but then you bristle at similarly inaccurate views of the conservative agends. Maybe the Republicans need to work harder at getting out the fact that they are not opposed to helping the poor, schools, etc.
I think all it reflects is that the majority of voters have soundbite justifications for their choices, and I just don't know how we can educate our populace better, especially given that anybody who attempts this task is likely to have a bias. It takes a heck of a lot of effort to become educated enough to vote well. I think we Hatrackers are not typical of the population at large when it comes to responsible voting. In addition to all the passive research I do just by reading Hatrack, I spend a good couple of nights researching candidates and positions on ammendments and comparing editorials, and so forth. A couple of evenings is not really a lot to ask of a voter, in exchange for the power to make decisions that affect all of our futures, but most voters (let alone most citizens) won't even give that much.
So while the question, "How can democrats (or republicans) become better at the strategy of winning over the misinformed?" may have practical value for democrats or republicans, it's a PR question, and not the more important one, in the long term. The more important question is how can we create a culture where people take their respobsibility seriously and truly spend time educating themselves before they vote. And I have no earthly idea how to answer that.
-o-
As to not believing Kerry's campaign promises . . . heck, I voted for him, but I didn't believe all of his promises. Some of his promises struck me as inconsistent with his voting record, and as mere strategic attempts to pander to moderate voters by appearing to be a Republican in Democrat's clothes. If trust has eroded, it's probably not the fault of the voters, but of the politicians.
Which brings us back to the same question. The system is breaking, if it's not already broken. How can we fix it?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
One more thing:
quote: So, can the democratic party ever win back the south - which is heavily populated with women just like these? If they do, they will have to address the concerns of these women - they care about protecting their way of worship that they think is under attack, they care about abortion, and they care about how much money is cut from their checks. They don't vote democratic because their parents and grandparents always did. The democratic party needs to address them - see to their needs, if it hopes to win them back
The problem is that they were wrong. If Kerry clearly states that he is going to raise taxes on everyone making 200,000 to pay for the war, that tax increase doesn't include them. Abortion isn't going to go away, and both sides are reasonable, there is just going to have to be a compromise. Their needs are to listen to what's being said, and the Democratic party needs to do a better job saying them, but this is a disconnect in understanding, not in issue.
Again, it goes back to trust. Who would they vote for if they believed and understood everything that was said.
[ November 17, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And, as I've said before, very few people (including myself) liked or trust John Kerry. Maybe, just maybe, you want to consider that they might have had legitimate reasons for this. Or hey, go ahead and lose the next election too. At least you'll have the warm feeling of being able to blame it on all those benighted people who just don't vote for the right people and not on the terrible job done by your party and your candidate.
[ November 17, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would like to apologize for any hurt feelings that resulted from what I said.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, here's an idea I've been toying around with.
There are several points (well, none is one point, but you understand) on the income line.
There are the people who don't make enough to get by.
There are the people who make enough to get by, but with few luxuries.
There are the people who make enough to get by with a moderate amount of luxuries.
There are the people who make enough to get by with lots of luxuries.
Now, right now we try not to tax the first group. However, we tax everybody else. What if we moved it up a notch or two? What if we taxed only the people in the last, or last two categories? What if every dollar under, say, $45k was exempt?
I say this with the idea that the goal is to make it so people in our nation can live in relative comfort, with good lives.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And, as I've said before, very few people (including myself) liked or trust John Kerry. Maybe, just maybe, you want to consider that they might have had legitimate reasons for this.
I fully agree that this is the issue. I'll just go further that all of the other issues were effects of this one issue. And the Democrats shouldn't run around trying to fix all of the effects, when they can just fix the core and be done with it.
Obama is more liberal than John Kerry, yet even OSC pegs him for a moderate because he-OSC-- trusts him.
The enemy of the party is untruthful slickness, not abortion or taxes. I still think that American Politics is shaking off the initial injection of Nixon's lying, and Clinton's lie as a booster shot.
It's not an issue of the democrats moving anywhere. We need to get religion, split up the bad christians from the good christians, yes there is a difference, the KKK is a great example, and do it with honest, thoughtful righteousness. So much so that even if people don't agree, trust isn't the issue.
[ November 17, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What if we taxed only the people in the last, or last two categories?"
I think you'd find it difficult to define "luxury" without killing several luxury industries.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: There are the people who don't make enough to get by.
There are the people who make enough to get by, but with few luxuries.
There are the people who make enough to get by with a moderate amount of luxuries.
There are the people who make enough to get by with lots of luxuries.
I would put myself in the second to last group. I keep my bills low and put few expenses on the credit card, mostly online purchases like hotel rooms and plane tickets. I also pay my card off right away so I don't pay tons of interest. I have an 85 Audi with fantastic gas milage I bought outright. I don't make car payments. I'm also single with no children, a huge savings by itself.
So should I be taxed more becuase my income stretches well? Should my friends who make more than me be taxed less becuase they spend more?
Unfortunetly, standard of living and income are not the same thing. Pastor Dan would say anyone who makes enough to buy food, clothing, a place to stay, and has money left over is rich.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Kat, just so you know, it was not my intention to dogpile on you, but to join into what had become an interesting tangent.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know, Icky.
It's funny to see what topics are taboo. I mean, there's no problem discussing religion, politics, sex, crime, and health, but I get blushingly prude about this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*in a low, sultry voice* So, how much do you make, Katie?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*freezes and blushes* Really. That's just not appropriate. Ah'm sure you didn't mean to make me shy.
[ November 17, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom unfortunately you don't bear a striking resemblance to Jesus. I don't think your sultry voice is gonna get you anywhere with Katie.
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I can't imagine someone not knowing how much their parents make or their husband makes.
My parents never told me what they earned when they were working, nor what their pensions are now that they're retired. I am also unware of the extent and value of their investments, and I don't know what they've written in their wills.
Obviously over the years I've gained a ballpark understanding of where we fall on the economic ladder, but we have never talked specifics. They don't ask me about my finances, either, beyond "have you got enough money?" And they're quite satisifed with a simple yes or no answer to that question.
Basically, in my family, each person's finances are their own business. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* It almost makes you wonder how much Eddie paid in taxes last year.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A lady doesn't speak of such things.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I didn't know Frisco was a lady!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
On the other hand, while my family doesn't really talk money, I don't care when other people do and I don't object to being asked about my finances.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I haven't read the entire thread yet, but Kat, in my family, it was considered rude to discuss salaries (ours or anyone else's, for that matter). I had NO idea what my parents made until I was well into college.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So, twinky, how are your finances these days?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I still don't know how much my father made.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Just for the record, I don't know what my parents make only because a) it changes every week and b) I immediately forget if they tell me, not because such conversation would be inappropriate in our home. They do tell me how much they need from me, and for how long, and to the best of my knowledge, they are fair in paying the money back Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I bet the Boy Scouts are loaded.
I bet the Boy Scout building dominates the Dallas skyline.
I bet Kat has a summer home, a winter home, and one of them new fangled indoor outhouses in both of them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh my stars, it's still there. I read that post and my first thought was, "I can't believe Stormy is joking about such private information."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So, twinky, how are your finances these days?
Just fine. I finished university with no debt and a few thousand dollars saved. My RRSP's value is finally creeping back up, and I have enough money for a cheap car in a short-term investment that will come back to me next year, right about the time I ought to need to buy one.
Next up: land a job. The savings are presently earmarked for my next visit to New Zealand, so I have to make sure that the job I get offers good vacation time. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow.
Real dollars or Canadian monopoly money?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Now in Cor's family, money is not discussed at all. I don't just mean salary or reasonably private information, but information that we would kind of need to know. It. is. not. discussed. I mean, to the point where it's practically dysfunctional.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: You're misunderstanding the distinction. The distinction isn't among luxuries and non-luxuries, but among levels of income very roughly defined by available luxuries. There is no pressing need under such a distinction for a precise definition of luxury; it is quite possible to agree that someone earning $1 million dollars can afford lots of luxuries, for instance, with no particular specification of what a luxury is.
More, this is a question about tax philosophy.
Most people agree it is not right to tax those earning under, say, $5k. They feel that this first five thousand dollars is necessary for someone to live with, and as such should be exempt. The exact amount we're talking about here doesn't really matter. Its more about what comfort level we feel is "justified" under our system. Is a lower middle class level of income the sort of level we think a reasonable minimal level to try to raise people up to? Then all taxes on income up to that level should be removed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, Storm, the Canadian dollar is sitting at ~US$0.83 these days, the highest it's been in as long as I can remember... our exporters are feeling some serious pain as a result.
[ November 18, 2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
The "statistic" (rumor?) in Canada is 1/3 of every dollar goes towards taxes
(I stopped reading thread after first page however... so this is probably completely irrelevent or maybe Twinky/BtL/etc answered this already...)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have no clue what my parents made when they were working. It never came up.
My wife and I have always known our incomes because it would have been impossible to keep afloat if we couldn't account for every dollar. For awhile there we would switch bill-paying/budgeting responsibilities back and forth to suit our strengths (I was better at juggling bills during the years we were struggling, she was better at sacking money away when we had extra) and we continue to switch every couple of years so both of us keep an idea of our finances.
I've got a fair idea of the tax brackets my friends are in, but specifics rarely come up.
I don't talk about income at work, at all. I've worked at only two companies my whole life (not counting an additional gas station job I took on for the months before the firstborn was, well, born) and both of them excelled at unequal pay scales for various reasons. I like where I'm at, complaining would do me no good at all, so I've little reason to increase the level of resentment around me.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Most people agree it is not right to tax those earning under, say, $5k. They feel that this first five thousand dollars is necessary for someone to live with, and as such should be exempt. The exact amount we're talking about here doesn't really matter. Its more about what comfort level we feel is "justified" under our system. Is a lower middle class level of income the sort of level we think a reasonable minimal level to try to raise people up to? Then all taxes on income up to that level should be removed.
I guess I'm not most people then. I think that if we have an income tax, then anyone who has an income should pay taxes. Even if that income isn't very much. It'll mean that they don't pay much in taxes. It is, in my mind, part of being a citizen to pay taxes. So even if it's not very much, you prove your citizenship by the fact that you contribute to our society's government. Whereas if you pay nothing, and under our system, even get more back than you paid in, you're really just participating in federal redistribution of wealth. Someone else earned the money that you with the lower income get to enjoy. I *really* don't like that at all. It is a joy to share my wealth (such as it is), but I don't particularly like being forced into it.
But then we have to factor in that most states, counties and cities have sales tax. Sales taxes, IMO, are also grossly unfair, in that they do not take the income of the purchaser into account. Thus a person who makes $200K could pay the same amount in taxes as a person who makes $20K, if they chose identical spending habits. OTOH, someone who makes $20K can't *afford* some of the things a person who makes $200K does. I don't mind the idea that a person with a higher income pays more taxes, as long as it's about the same percentage across the board.
In other words, the more complicated the tax code, the less fair people feel it is, no matter where they are on the income spectrum. I'm on the higher end of that spectrum -- yes, this year (for the first time) we will break Kerry's threshold definition of "rich". I don't like that some people feel entitled to the money we worked very hard this year to earn (you've no idea...it's been a hell of a year); ala "You make way more than you could possible need to live on. I don't make enough, even though I work hard too. I deserve some of what you have. Gimme." That's just offensive. I honestly don't mind "redistributing" our wealth -- we donate between 15 to 20% of our gross income to various charities each year. We can, so we do. But we get to choose those charities, and that's why I don't think I should pay a higher tax percentage rate simply because my income level is higher. The government doesn't help people by giving them money. I know too many people who make little because making more would lose them federal benefits they've come to depend on. How sad. They choose to limit their great potential for a dole. But there are people who do need help that money can provide. We research, and we donate, or we give directly. We get asked for money pretty often, and sometimes, even to relatives, we say No. Because we can see clearly that it would not be good for that person to say Yes. That's where the government is *not* a good redistributor of wealth. It's too difficult to regulate who really needs financial assistance, and who, by giving cash, you're just enabling.
That said, it's sad to me that those in the upper incomes ($80K and above, IMO) are not particularly well known for their charitable giving. It is, IMO again, a responsibility and privilege when you have more than you really need.
edited to add that talking about what you make at work is a recipe for unrest. You can't win. If you make less, then you feel bad. If you make more, your coworkers feel bad (which, if you're sympathetic person, makes you feel bad too). Talking about what you make in actual figures, unless you have a good reason for it (like getting counselling for what to do with it -- we know to the penny what our best friends make, because they asked for our help to plan their budget) is not likely to promote good feelings elsewhere either.
[ November 18, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeni,
We are fighting a war. Doesn't that have to cut a little into someone's check, and if it has to cut into someone's check, shouldn't it be yours?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
jeni, of course, if you do donate 10-20% of your gross income to charities, you get a tax write-off that would pull you below Kerry's line anyway. And youy only get taxed at the new rate on money earned at the new bracket.
Whether you are making 40k, or 400k, the first 40k earned are taxed at the same rate; it's subsequent income that get taxed higher.
-Bok
[ November 18, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, if everyone is sharing the burden, then I don't mind if the number of dollars from my wallet is greater than the number from yours. That's a federal matter, and my citizenship isn't worth more than yours. My percentage of the contribution shouldn't be any more either, unless I volunteer it. Which we probably would if asked. Forcibly being taxed is different than being asked for further contribution.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
This might be of interest and relevant to this thread; it's a state-by-state listing of much (or little) of federal money gets spent into a state compared to the taxes sent from that state.
While there are exceptions, in general, the "blue state" pay out more than they receive, while "red states" are more likely to get receive more than they pay.
Here in Illinois, we receive 77 cents for every dollar sent to Washington.
Alabama, OTOH receives $1.61 in federal spending for every dollar that goes from that state to Washington.
The site looks nonpartisan, even possibly a conservative slant, but other can probably judge that better than I can:
Except that you agree to be ruled by the law of the USA. As a result, one could say (despite very colorful Libertarian language to the contrary) you aren't being forced to pay. You have very clear avenues to pursue to change the pay rate. And there's the ever-useless suggestion of moving out of the country
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Those tax states will be naturally skewed, because a lot of our national defense money (military bases) is spent in those red states... I wonder what it would be if you removed military base expenditures, but kept military-industrial complex expenditures in (weapons/vehicle manufacturers and the like).
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
sndrake I don't know if just calling them "red" and "blue" states is truly fair. Farm subsidies have been around for a very long time for one thing, and those only affect rural areas. Also more rural areas need roads just as much as urban areas. Across the country, it costs just as much to put in a road in a rural area as it does an urban area, sometimes more. Are we to tell the rural areas that they don't deserve roads that will get them to the hospitals because they don't pay as much in taxes? (And rural areas still have huge quantities of dirt roads nonetheless.)
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The tax rate is pretty fair, if you look at the total percentage of tax payed as equivalent to the total percentage of wealth owned.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Bok,
that really doesn't change the picture. The dollars spent on defense in the red states contribute heavily to both employment and the overall economy. Move the bases or the industries, and the economies would take a hit.
Note - as I said, there are exceptions. Texas has fairly close to a 1:1 ratio in terms of its relationship with the Feds.
And a couple of the blue states are in the plus column, but not by much.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Heavens Bok, I would never choose to leave. I love America. Where else could a married couple who have virtually no higher education qualify as "rich" by Kerry standards? That's the American Dream. 'Course, next year could be complete crap. That's the joy of being 100% commission.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's why I said "ever-useless"; I don't put any stock in that option either
-Bok
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
AJ,
See, I agree with you.
As someone who pays taxes in Illinois, I don't mind that almost a quarter of my federal taxes go out of state. In other words, I'm really not saying something like "why should *I* have to pay for some of the red states?"
As an American, I don't object to the idea of sacrifice - although the sentiment seems to be losing popularity.
I'm not objecting to the disparity, but trying to highlight some irony.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
aahhh, actually with all of the hype the last day over the Clinton Presidential library opening, I was wondering whether the gov't picks up some of the tab for presidential libraries and if so how much?
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
jeniwren: rich by Kerry standards is over $300k. You made over $300k?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you want to spread the tax load around more fairly, start taxing 'churches'.
/rant
I am a little joking, but it boggles my mind how some godly preachers have so much wealth. Aren't people like T.D. Jakes and Benny Hinn wealthy because of church offerings and church run businesses?
/rant
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, nah...Kerry said $200K.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:aahhh, actually with all of the hype the last day over the Clinton Presidential library opening, I was wondering whether the gov't picks up some of the tab for presidential libraries and if so how much?
I checked around a little, and it looks like the Clinton library was built mostly with private donations. I think there was some funding through a bond in Little Rock, but it was a minority of the funding.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oops, sorry. I do think that $200k would be classified as rich by over 99% of people you meet, though .
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
It's a one time fluke I hope. This was an unusually busy year. Normally it's not anywhere close to that. The word "rich" sounds so permanent.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, if everyone is sharing the burden, then I don't mind if the number of dollars from my wallet is greater than the number from yours. That's a federal matter, and my citizenship isn't worth more than yours.
That is a fine answer. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd be much happier if tax collection were flipped, so that states collected far more taxes than the Federal government. There's much greater accountability and ability for the citizenry to make their wishes known in state governments. States could create the kind of government they want with respect to services, safety nets, welfare, etc., and people could change from one type of society to another without having to emigrate.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To put that in perspective, jeni, you made as much last year as the typical American family makes in six. In other words, even if you made no money at all for the next five years, you'd still have enjoyed an above-average salary over that time frame. To put that into a more direct perspective, if Christy and I had made the same amount, we could have enjoyed our current comfortable lifestyle and still had $160,000 left over from this year alone to put into Sophie's college fund -- which is enough to pay for four years of private college costs at current rates.
[ November 18, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You are forgetting taxes, Tom .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. But as neither Jeni nor I were being specific about our incomes to the dollar, and as I imagine we're both fairly well-informed regarding the tax code, I figure the difference -- while not negligible -- is not substantial enough to invalidate the point. *grin*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, bear in mind that the bulk of it has had 38% withheld. Even so, our children's and neices' college funds have done well this year. I hope it means that our neices *will* go to college, since they otherwise won't really have the opportunity. Some of it went to pay for services that we needed because I travelled 8 months of this year for work. A lot went to pay for the new roof, new windows and repainting of our rental house. Relatives live in that house at cost, so improvements to the house are pure loss. (Tax deductible though.) A chunk went to pay our share of our daughter's surgery at the end of last year. We maxed out the allowable out-of-pocket expenses on the 5 day hospital stay.
It goes faster than you might think. We didn't buy any real extravagances except for the 42" DLP TV...which IMO was shopping therapy after our daughter had her hip fixed. It is a bit embarrassing, though we do enjoy it. We don't owe anyone any money, though, except for the houses, and that's the nicest part of having such a good year.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
*makes notes that if jeni evers makes it back to Florida, she's buying dinner cause she's rich and all*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Zan. We'd do that anyway. See you in 2006, I think. Be thinking where you want to go. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
What ever happened to your last trip here? Did you ever make it?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Random:
quote: In fact, I make nothing. Well, I have made $300 in the last four and a half years from my writing. And maybe a total of $500 in the last year from selling items on Ebay.
I have a husband who works very hard to provide for our family - and I happen to love him and I'm proud of him.
I agree with this if you're sitting at home doing nothing with no children to care for.
But the minute burden of children enters the picture, *they* become the primary concern. It stops being "What's best for me and my wife?" and becomes "What's best for *our* children?"
What's best for the children is to make enough income to keep them alive, etc. If you were not there to watch the children, your husband would have to hire a nanny to do it at a severe pay loss to himself. Not to mention a housekeeper to clean his house.
Do I like referring to a housewife's giving nature in terms of how much cash she's worth? Not really. But when you consider how much more increase your husband has because you're there to do the dirty work, then you'll see exactly how much you DO earn.
Who you choose to handle the finances is another question entirely.
-----
Another random:
In my second year of marriage, my husband and I had to move to take care of my mother in another state while she underwent chemo. The job market was terrible that year, and my husband was doing two part-time jobs making basically diddly. I can't remember how much it was exactly, but it was less than what he could have made with a full-time job making minimum wage, which he couldn't find. So he took two janitorial jobs, one at Belk's and one for our church, to try and keep us alive. (Eventually I ended up going to work instead, leaving him at home, because my earning potential was greater, but that's another story.)
Anyway, in desperation we turned to Welfare. We went down and applied, and were turned down. I wanted to know why, of course. The reasons they gave amounted to, "You're married" and "You have a job". Seriously. The woman practically laughed in our faces when we showed up, and she hadn't even seen our income yet. It apparently didn't matter that the jobs that he had weren't enough to meet our needs. I was pretty disgusted. I *thought* that people like me were the very ones Welfare was designed to help. People struggling to dig themselves out of poverty. Apparently it's only there for people who are perfectly content to remain in poverty, because you could only get Welfare down there if you didn't have a job.
It would be different if they were only talking about disabled people or any number of people who cannot work. But I can't imagine that all of those people were in that situation.
I know that there is a difference between the people who can't work and the people who don't want to. The only thing I can't figure out is how to weed the "don't want to's" out from the rest of them. Shouldn't there be some sort of rule that says anyone on Welfare who can work should have to in order to continue receiving benefits, unless no work is available"? Or is there already a rule like that I don't know about?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
No, we did a road trip to Montana and narrowly avoided being killed in a rock slide at Glacier Nat'l Park instead. Florida would have been more fun. My work travel schedule was so screwy I couldn't plan our vacation time. I didn't know until the Friday before our vacation that I would actually get to take the week off. Not good circumstances to buy airline tickets.
Since we didn't go this year, next year to FL would be a must, but hubby has pretty much staked our vacation out for Hawaii so we can visit a couple of his customers. And we have to go to NC to go visit my grandmother as we haven't been to visit since she moved there 5 years ago. So I'm figuring 2006. If it's sooner, I'll make sure to email. I still want to meet Ryan. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Shouldn't there be some sort of rule that says anyone on Welfare who can work should have to in order to continue receiving benefits, unless no work is available"? Or is there already a rule like that I don't know about?
quote:President Clinton proposed and Congress adopted a $3 billion program to help move welfare recipients into work. This program is targeted at the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients: people who have been on welfare for a long period, have limited reading and math skills and poor work histories, and, in some cases, are struggling to overcome substance abuse problems.
FWIW, it is designed for you. I am sorry that you had a bad experience, PSI.
quote:Fact #3. Over One-Third of Welfare Families Have Stayed on Welfare for One Year or Less...
Time on Welfare: 1 year or under 34.3% 1-2 years 16.3% 2-3 years 11.9% 3-4 years 8.7% 4-5 years 6.4% 5 or more years 22.1%
Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF, "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients" 1996, U.S. Census Bureau
The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" (aka Welfare Reform Law) imposes a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. Most adult recipients of public aid must find a job before receiving benefits for a total of 2 years, or they lose those benefits.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Jeni, if the tv is the big splurge during this windfall year, balanced against all that you do for others, I wouldn't be a bit embarassed.
I'm not sure if I know of anyone else who would show that much restraint.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*will probably, at this rate, never make more than 4 figures*
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:start taxing 'churches'.
/rant
I am a little joking, but it boggles my mind how some godly preachers have so much wealth
These do not connect. Pastors pay income tax, just like anyone else. We also pay 100% of our social security tax (in most professions the employer pays half) and we pay it on non-cash benefits (like housing) as well as on salary.
If clergy are getting rich (and some certainly are) it's because they're being paid a ridiculously high salary, not because they get any money tax free. (Unless, of course, they're cheating on their taxes. I'm sure that happens as well.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, but in theory churches are tax free because that leaves them more money to do good with, and those clergy who are wealthy are getting paid out of offerings that should be going to feed the hungry, serve the poor, what have you, was kind of my not so well made point.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And I think that there are other issues with churches being tax free. There are various militant atheist/anti-religion people who dote on providing reasons as to why 'churches' shouldn't be tax free. I don't know any of them, and I just kind of threw it out to see what people thought about the idea rather than googling around for stuff about something that I honestly don't know anything about.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Stormy, I think we'd find that a number of good churches and non-profit organizations would go under, where the televangelists of the country would go on getting richer.
I earnestly believe that local churches and localized secular non-profits are far more effective at helping the poor and needy than the government. They have less red tape, more ability and willingness to see the situation more fully than a government agency.
I'd hate to see any of these groups die off because they had to pay their tax bill (though I wholeheartedly agree that they must pay payroll taxes -- I've heard of churches that protested even that, which is silly. Jesus said to give Ceasar his due.)
edited to add that it's always a good thing to find out how much of your charitable contributions actually make it into the hands of the needy. If an organization will not give you their year-end financial statements, it's probably a good bet the answer is "not much".
[ November 18, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I earnestly believe that local churches and localized secular non-profits are far more effective at helping the poor and needy than the government. They have less red tape, more ability and willingness to see the situation more fully than a government agency.
I'm a fan of secular non-profits, and the ones I know of are heavily government subsidized, but there is a strange kind of red tape which goes along with praying to Jesus as the Savior of mankind in order to get a bowl of soup.
That said, in some ways, the Catholic Church does more good for the people in Los Angeles than the government. Whether one is a member of a church or not, an American is an American, and there is a dignity in knowing that we, as a nation, take care of Americans, and all they have to do is show up.
That said, I think that they should have to say the pledge, too.
Edit:
Every American deserves food, shelter, and education, not in virtue of their faith but in virtue of their citizenship. It seems inappropriate to outsource the job which is properly America's, to a group which may make this help conditional on a religious practice, service, or worship. This is one of those things that may not be a big deal for you, but it's a deal breaker, and it should be.
[ November 19, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true...we were poor when we were young, and when he was working up the ladder at JC Penney he didn't make much, but I rememeber that my parents were always very coreful to not mention pay rates during casual conversations. The only reason they managed to get a house at all was because my dad was a Vet, and got a VA loan in a low income subdevision that had been recently completed.
If he knew I was even saying this much on an internet forum, he would not be a happy camper....and I haven't really said anything at all...lol...
Even with friends it was considered impolite to discuss it, inless you needed to know. Even then it was up to the person you were discussing it with to say if it was OK do talk about it.
Here, though, I think it was OK, because this was a frank discussion about socio-economic conditions and what there influence on the election might have been.
It was never a shame thing, or something we were embarressed about...it simply wasn't ta proper topic for discussion.
Kwea
[ November 19, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Back to which party is going to make you pay more money...
I argue that this one is making quite sure our tax burden will stay quite high for generations to come.
Posted by Mara (Member # 2232) on :
One question about welfare: should we really be requiring everyone on welfare to work? At first glance it seems like a good idea. After all, why should we support people who just sit on their bottoms all day? But if we're talking single parents, would we really rather have them work all day making minimum wage AND paying for child care (which would probably not be very good)? Is that really preferable than supporting them as they raise children?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Borrow today, pay it off tomorrow.
Is it just me or was the economy a lot better when we were paying off the debt rather than building it up?
But then again, like with a credit card, it's not what your spending limit is, but how much you use of it that can get you into a hole.
Are our representatives, from both parties, too aggressive in funding things?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nor, for that matter, is every atheist a Democrat; I believe the Pixiest is in fact passionately anti-Democrat, because she hates Social Security more than she hates Jesus. *laugh*![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Man, iss that ever the truth in my case! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)