~ Got My Tax Rebate Check

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen also said:

Those that make $150K/year could spend half of what they make and still live a better life than someone making $30K/year.

It all depends...someone living in SoCal making $150k a year, trying to live on $75k may not be able to have as good a life as many people making $30k a year living elsewhere...furthermore, what does it mean to "live a better life".



Some of the happiest, most content people are modest (if not poor), and some of the most miserable people are rich.



Once we start passing judgement on who deserves to get back their own money, then the crap starts.



Thus, as I said above, the most fair way to do such a rebate is just let everyone get back some percentage of what they paid in....say 10%.



TJR

 

[Les]

dreman, Jaded Redfish used to be just "Redfish". A couple of weeks ago there was a thread that discussed the, how shall I say it,..."honesty and integrity" of police officers. Several people commented that ALL police officers are "jaded". Redfish, is a police officer in the Great State of Florida. Since that time he has referred to himself as "Jaded Redfish"...

 

[Chad Merry]

Wish I got a rebate check... Would have helped with gas to Moab this year.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Every single person out there that makes $150K worked hard for it, but the guy making $40K in a factory that is 100 degrees in the summer and 50 degrees in the winter doesn't?

No, that guy in the factory might not have worked hard for his 40,000 USD. UPS had no air conditioning and crap heat--100 degrees in there would have been nice--but because the part time guys who worked there long enough to make 40k had protection either from knowing management or exploiting the union tenure setup, they could bum and chill in the a/c'd break room for hours, while everyone else was forced to cover for them.



The supervisors who were full or part time and made 30-70K a year didn't do anything besides pass the hate from superiors down to the grunts, so they didn't work hard for it.





The head supervisors who made 150+K who strolled around the factory ripping anyone they could find a new one did not work hard for their money, as they're management and UPS has some of the most mismanaged plants I have ever seen.



Only because of the few dedicated guys who did do their work, 1 out of 10 at best, did any boxes ever get put out at ups. I was part of that 10 percent. I made nowhere near 40K/year there part time, but I was part of it. I'm sure ups is the same everywhere, that's what they said they strove to be, so that means that in one of the top 5 companies in the us, only 10% of their staff is working hard for their money.



So Caymen, I answer your question with a steadfast "no". The laziness of the many undermines the reputation of the precious few hard workers.





TJR, I agree. It's about the principle of taxes, not the pay, gimme my 10%! (or higher, don't be shy)



(P.S. How can you have a jaded red fish? That sounds kind of hard..)

 

[P M]

Having the government judge who should get their money back and who should not is a very slippery slope in my opinion. The discussion above simply highlights how different viewpoints and opinions can confuse things. The current tax system is as much about giving the government power to manipulate society as much as it is a means to simply generate revenue. I think the tax system, and all its judgments, should go away.



Thomas Jefferson didn't think we should apply tax laws unevenly either.



"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.""

 

[Robert Thomas]

Catch and Release - Only the ones that are eaten don't get jaded:lol:

 

[B M]

W O W ....... Look what my big mouth got started ! ! Sorry for ruining the original thread idea ! ! Oops.. I like the 10% idea.... Yes as stated somewhere up the thread, I am sure someone making 30k would like to have my household income instead of a check from G.W.

Come get it ! ! ! It is ALLLLLLL yours for the taking.. It will cost several hundred thousand dollars to get here all said and done, and years of making nothing, but its all yours. When you get here, you get to travel for weeks at a time and not see your family, but hey I'm rich.......Our views of "rich" are quite different. When it comes right down to it unless you are making MILLIONS a year you get raped with taxes. I pay a higher percentage than someone making 30k. I also dont like paying Social Security. I dont like paying my Union. Basically I don't like paying for a service, that doesn't get results.. SS won't be avail. for me when I get there.....Why would I pay for yours AND my retirement assistance? Not my fault you didn't plan. My Union has given my company a minimum of 30k a YEAR, PLUS retirement benefits from my salary over the last 6 years... I've adjusted.. The company asked the Union gave no fight at all....GREAT JOB ALPA....Useless garbage that I am funding.....Ok sorry got distracted...Bottomline It is the American way to stretch and stretch your income. The checks you are recieving are to distract the easily distracted from the true problem. These TRULY rich politicians are throwing money to the poor and weak (all of us), to shut us up for a little while. Just throw some money at them keep them quiet......let them eat cake.....It is a silly ass quick fix that will do nothing. Meanwhile I will keep investing my money overseas......thanks...Except my ST.......Oh wait Ford is using Brazil to build vehicles.....Ok I guess thats out too.....

 

[Thomas Rogers]

B said:

I dont like paying my Union. Basically I don't like paying for a service, that doesn't get results.

Sounds like a good point for the thread a few months back about union membership dropping like GWB's opinion polls.

 

[Les]

Aw geez, here we go...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les...

 

[Tom Schindler]

The whole $150K issue *SHOULD* be moot when it comes to the tax rebate. The question of whether someone NEEDS a rebate more than someone else given how much they make should ALSO be moot, IMHO.

While I agree with you point, the ones feeling the pinch are not the upper class. It is those that are on the lower end that are hurting and are not spending like business wants them too.



This can be looked at as giving the lower class of people some money to spend.

It all depends...someone living in SoCal making $150k a year, trying to live on $75k may not be able to have as good a life as many people making $30k a year living elsewhere...furthermore, what does it mean to "live a better life".

To quote a certian member here, just move to a better location and enjoy lower property rates.

No, that guy in the factory might not have worked hard for his 40,000 USD. UPS had no air conditioning and crap heat--100 degrees in there would have been nice--but because the part time guys who worked there long enough to make 40k had protection either from knowing management or exploiting the union tenure setup, they could bum and chill in the a/c'd break room for hours, while everyone else was forced to cover for them.

So the part time guys, the non union ones I take it were under the boss's desk to avoid work?



Who were the ones having to cover for them? The full time guys?

The head supervisors who made 150+K who strolled around the factory ripping anyone they could find a new one did not work hard for their money, as they're management and UPS has some of the most mismanaged plants I have ever seen.

So the guys making $150K+ plus did not do thier job properly because the mismanaged the plants? Sounds to me the lazy attitude starts from the top.

Our views of "rich" are quite different. When it comes right down to it unless you are making MILLIONS a year you get raped with taxes. I pay a higher percentage than someone making 30k. I also dont like paying Social Security. I dont like paying my Union. Basically I don't like paying for a service, that doesn't get results.. SS won't be avail. for me when I get there.....Why would I pay for yours AND my retirement assistance?

Is that the same as taking smaller pay with the promise that they will give us a retirement check when we retire only to find out that they gave the money to CEO's instead of investing it into a retirement fund?



My Union dues cost me about $50.00/month. What do I get out of that money? Some may say nothing.



I get to say no. "Hey Tom, want to work over?", No think you!. "Hey Tom, want to work the wekend?", No thank you!



It used to be "Hey Tom, you are working saturday". Hey, I can't. A friend died and I need to go to his funeral. "If you dont come in, you are fired." Or another "Hey Tom, you need to stay over." I am sorry, I am unable to. I have a concert to go to tonight. "Sell the tickets, you are working or you find a new job".



Having the right to say no is worth $100.00/month for me.





Tom

 

[buzz worth]

sure wish I got a rebate check.........it would help pay for this new tractor I just bought that will help stimulate the economy and get us out of the "recession" that nobody seems ready to admit we are in.



buzz



p.s.....the rebates are going to those most likely to go out and SPEND the money to grease the wheels of the economy so everyone will go back to their old ways of spending more than they can afford to. On THAT Mr. Cayman and I agree. Americans need to go back to the old values of "saving for a rainy day"....because they always come. Whether it is for health problems, education, or supporting ones elder parents, or whatever......one MUST have a nestegg.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Caymen, I left out an important fact with UPS. It's always hard to not leave something out when you're explaining.



At UPS, everyone is in the union, even the part time guys, unless they are seasonal help, which is only from the last week of November to the first week of January. If they are allowed to stay on longer, they're conscripted into the union.



The whole plant was just obsessed with making numbers, and took hitler-ian measures to get there, not realizing that if they'd just go at a steady pace and have everyone work what they were supposed to work, they would regularly exceed their mandated package counts. But alas, they thought that using the "buddy system" and letting guys with union clout sit around and do nothing while making everyone else work 2x what they were supposed to would work out. The whole tortoise and hare moral was lost on them.



When some of the people in management got tired of the losers who exploited the union to get paid for nothing, and protested it, the union threatened to go on strike, and led to 2 month long negotiations. The "Reach agreement by Oct 31, 2007 or we're done" shirts put out for the protest are still worn by many in the plant today...the many who slacked off in the first place.



The union reps were the worst slackers known to man...it seems as though unions need unions to protect their members.



**The few smart people still have the "nestegg". The majority of people don't, but that's just because "people are dumb" (while a person is smart). Maybe they'll learn from Experience, but with bankruptcy such a good option (cough), and advertised on all those friendly commercials, why would they want to save, which is so hard when they know that they can just cut and run with few strings attached when the going gets rough?

On this, I'm still questioning the ethics of the one member here who said that if gas prices got to high, he'd default on his lease and leave it "as ford's problem", and this ability was why he leased.

 

[Tom Schindler]

The union reps were the worst slackers known to man...it seems as though unions need unions to protect their members.

That is no different than the slacker getting lunch under the bosses desk...if you know what I mean.





Tom



p.s. Did you get my email?

 

[Kevin Lang]

Yes I did receive your email. Thanks.



You're right; it is no different than your euphemism, but at least if they were doing that they would be lowering themselves so much to get the privilege to slack that their lack of work would not seem so bad to me. They'd be making a trade, a very bad trade, and that would put them at the lowest work "social caste" making the normal workers feel better about working their share, because while they have to work harder, at least they aren't "enjoying" a 15 calorie lunch break.



But when they abuse the union, they're getting the privilege to slack without any nasty side effects or social stigma. A slacker at work is a frustration, a slacker who takes his breaks under the boss' desk is a laughingstock....one makes me feel better than the other. There is no difference in the end result, but I'd feel better about it if they weren't exploiting the union and were instead themselves being exploited.