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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know it's probably a southern thing - you know us nosy southerners - we are always in everybody's business. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, just so you know, it was not my intention to dogpile on you, but to join into what had become an interesting tangent.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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...)
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Man, iss that ever the truth in my case! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
