Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: rsactuaryAnywhoo.. this memo convinces me more than ever that Trump knows he's broken the law and is desperate to not have that come out. Hopefully his days are numbered.
Of course Trump's days are numbered...I mean just look at the Thread Title. Everyone here knows its over, just ask around...the "sharp" political minds usually hang out here daily...well ever since they abandoned that "First 100 Days" Trump Thread when it became "counter productive". But you'll find useful nuggets of insight here each and everyday, well except for today because AMS has unfortunately been suspended.
Quote: terapinedI totally agree
Wow, Dow now down 600 points
It's a buyer's market, baby! I'll be buying all the way down...
Quote: BozMore jobs than expected created in January
Highest hourly wages since 2009
Trump over 50% approval on economy
Maybe AMS knew exactly what he was doing taking a few days off.
Sometimes you just need to be alone, sit in a corner and cry when things are not going your way.
Congratulations to everyone who saw their wages go up last month and is now bringing home more money each week due to our Presidents signature Tax Bill. Enjoy the extra money and hopefully you can do something fun with it and continue to grow the economy.
I can never tell if you are being sarcastic or what.
Anyways, my paycheck went up by an entire $11. I would prefer to have that in the form of a tax return or a lump sum like what happened years ago.
With all these bonuses and the little bit in our checks that is just going to fuel inflation and things will get more expensive.
Why you callin her old? j/kQuote: terapinedI always liked this JZ video of him taking the subway to headline to a nearby arena to perform and just having a conversation with an old lady.
Quote: rsactuaryAnd don't forget to apologize to your kids who are going to have to work harder to pay that debt off.
That statement is worthless. You would have no money if there was no debt. Debt is Money.
Quote: GWAEI can never tell if you are being sarcastic or what.
Anyways, my paycheck went up by an entire $11. I would prefer to have that in the form of a tax return or a lump sum like what happened years ago.
With all these bonuses and the little bit in our checks that is just going to fuel inflation and things will get more expensive.
So you are not capable of putting the $11 a week aside and investing it in a mutual fund? You would rather have the government keep it for you interest free for a year and then send you $542? Sorry that makes no sense to me and while not singling you it, because there are millions who do the same over withhold/ get a big refund thing.
I honestly don’t see the mentality out there against keeping more of what YOU earned each week instead of the government taking it.
Quote: BozSo you are not capable of putting the $11 a week aside and investing it in a mutual fund? You would rather have the government keep it for you interest free for a year and then send you $542? Sorry that makes no sense to me and while not singling you it, because there are millions who do the same over withhold/ get a big refund thing.
I honestly don’t see the mentality out there against keeping more of what YOU earned each week instead of the government taking it.
Your question begs me to ask if you have ever lived at or near poverty levels?
A person who makes. $3000 a month at their job after taxes (somewhat over $20 an hour which is way above minimum wage) in nyc is living at near poverty level
Avrrage nyc apartment rent for 2 bedroom family unit is $2000 per month. Leaving $1k for everything else. Most nyc rent these days does not include all utilities (some include one like water or gas or electric some none at all)
After transportation utilities food clothing laundry costs for the family on $1k a month thats poverty level
Great they get an extra $11 a week
Basicslly $1.39 a day. When your child is hungry that buys an extra can of chef boyardee. Telling your kid he should go hungry so you can invest in a mutual fund?
Not only stinks but in nyc could wind up having your children taken away (in nyc if acs child protective services are called on you they inspect your fridge and closets to see they are adequately stocked. Telling them they are empty because its wiser to invest in mutual funds?
In the end $1.39 extra a day is in Republican parlance a nothing burger. No one amongst the under $20 per hour families (which the party wants to keep minimum wage low but needs this support) is gonna notice on a demonstrsble level. Come voting day if no one "feels" better financially (while Corporation with 15% tax cuts save millón to billions of dollars) Screaming at people they should have forgone that extrs csn of soda a day for mutual funds isnt gonna cut it
Quote: Boz
I honestly don’t see the mentality out there against keeping more of what YOU earned each week instead of the government taking it.
Try these...
Can you help me understand how my $8 or GWAE's $11 is worth 12 zeroes?
-- Sarah Sanders, White House Press Secretary
Quote: mcallister3200If you make that in NYC aren’t you choosing to live at the poverty level rather than being forced to? They choose to live there, could live elsewhere and get by just fine on 75% of that. Yes I know there’s life circumstances, family, etc. They are still choices at the end of the day, some are just more difficult to make or less practical than others (usually due to previous, well, choices)
So u feel 9 million people should move to another state so they can afford to invest in mutual funds?
BTW - living in a place where the average rent is say $1000 for a 2 bedroom house is also not a place where people can expect $20 per hour wages. Your just moving from a $20 per hour wage with $2000 per month rent to a place that pays $10 per hour for the same type of work and paying $1000 per month rent
Again your response makes my original point clear. You have never lived near poverty level. Its NOT a choice.
I guess people who have never been close to extreme financial circumstances just cant understand
Quote: darkoz
Again your response makes my original point clear. You have never lived near poverty level. Its NOT a choice.
I guess people who have never been close to extreme financial circumstances just cant understand
Actually I have. For about 1/3 of my adult life. So thanks for assuming for me that I would never have the ability to pull myself out if I had. And ultimately, it was choices that led to that struggle being longer than it should have and choices that pulled me out of it.
Quote: mcallister3200Actually I have. For about 1/3 of my adult life. So thanks for assuming for me that I would never have the ability to pull myself out if I had. And ultimately, it was choices that led to that struggle being longer than it should have and choices that pulled me out of it.
Im not saying people cant escape poverty.
6 years ago i was sleeping homeless on the nyc subways. Today im planning my sixth weeklong trip to disneyland while enjoying my home theater.
To be clear the choices you made worked out for you. For many people those choices dont. No one says (except for a few weird exceptions) "hey i think i wish to make as little money as possible. I will seek out the lowest wages i can in the highest rent market possible"
People are generally striving forward so why is it we have poverty levels and unsatisfaction with the economy? Its not because people choose that is my point
Quote: darkozSo u feel 9 million people should move to another state so they can afford to invest in mutual funds?
BTW - living in a place where the average rent is say $1000 for a 2 bedroom house is also not a place where people can expect $20 per hour wages. Your just moving from a $20 per hour wage with $2000 per month rent to a place that pays $10 per hour for the same type of work and paying $1000 per month rent
Again your response makes my original point clear. You have never lived near poverty level. Its NOT a choice.
I guess people who have never been close to extreme financial circumstances just cant understand
People who are not currently poor or close to it don't understand the difference a few hundred can make. Sure I can take my $11 and stick it in a box and claim it at the end of the year but like you said, it would be odd to take $11 out of the account when I could put that towards preschool or buy food. When I don't have the $11 the choice is easy. However at the end of the year it is nice to take the $400 and pay something off or take the kids somewhere or even take a nice weekend somewhere when we couldn't earlier.
Quote: GWAEPeople who are not currently poor or close to it don't understand the difference a few hundred can make. Sure I can take my $11 and stick it in a box and claim it at the end of the year but like you said, it would be odd to take $11 out of the account when I could put that towards preschool or buy food. When I don't have the $11 the choice is easy. However at the end of the year it is nice to take the $400 and pay something off or take the kids somewhere or even take a nice weekend somewhere when we couldn't earlier.
It's a great argument for raising minimum wage. Most people making close to that wage will reinvest in the economy rather than squirreling it. Raising minimum wage might also get the labor participation rate up (now unchanged in three years) and bring more people into the workforce. As I said before, the corporate Trump tax cuts have given temporary boosts to 3 million Americans of the 154 million in the workforce. That's a 2% trickle-down effect. Meanwhile, the cost of the bill will cost each of those working Americans ($1,600,000,000,000/154,000,000/10) $1,039 / year in debt that someone will have to pay down. This is roughly the same cost as ObamaCare.
One is a welfare program for the rich and corporations, the other is a poorly-designed welfare program to keep people healthy.
The question is do you want a society that just keeps getting richer and the poor keep struggling, or a society where the poor can have opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty?
old as the hills and is in Wiki. That somebody
took it as a personal insult is beyond amazing.
Does that mean 'So's your old man' and 'Your
mother wears army boots' are now suspendable
insults also? And people wonder why I avoid
this place..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question#Defense
Quote: billryanWhy don't those poor people simply borrow a couple million from their Dad like our rags to riches noble leader.
In today's dollars that "small loan" was like $7 million.
If you're the kind of person where someone will just hand you $7 million, then even without the loan you're already ahead of the game of life and more privileged than 99% of America and are far from struggling.
The "American disgrace" is that we have elected a Fearless Leader who does not know how to spell.
It's "there" not "their."
Coming soon: he'll confuse "impeach" for "I'm a peach."
Jesus wept.
Quote: MrVThe "American disgrace" is that we have elected a Fearless Leader who does not know how to spell.
That's the least of his shortcomings.
Quote: MrVResponding on Twitter to the memo for the first time since its release Friday, Mr. Trump said "their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction," repeating his line that the memo and its surrounding circumstances are an "American disgrace!"
The "American disgrace" is that we have elected a Fearless Leader who does not know how to spell.
It's "there" not "their."
Coming soon: he'll confuse "impeach" for "I'm a peach."
Jesus wept.
Sure seems like a lot of effort for someone who claims they've done nothing wrong.
Quote: GWAEPeople who are not currently poor or close to it don't understand the difference a few hundred can make. Sure I can take my $11 and stick it in a box and claim it at the end of the year but like you said, it would be odd to take $11 out of the account when I could put that towards preschool or buy food. When I don't have the $11 the choice is easy. However at the end of the year it is nice to take the $400 and pay something off or take the kids somewhere or even take a nice weekend somewhere when we couldn't earlier.
Having to use Uncle Sam as a savings account sounds like being an undisciplined degenerate to me.
Quote: darkozSo u feel 9 million people should move to another state so they can afford to invest in mutual funds?
BTW - living in a place where the average rent is say $1000 for a 2 bedroom house is also not a place where people can expect $20 per hour wages. Your just moving from a $20 per hour wage with $2000 per month rent to a place that pays $10 per hour for the same type of work and paying $1000 per month rent
Again your response makes my original point clear. You have never lived near poverty level. Its NOT a choice.
I guess people who have never been close to extreme financial circumstances just cant understand
One of the main reasons for the insanely high prices in Democratic strongholds is excessive taxes. Far away from those $h!*holes is where I plan to stay.
Quote: MaxPenOne of the main reasons for the insanely high prices in Democratic strongholds is excessive taxes. Far away from those $h!*holes is where I plan to stay.
And they probably dont want you there either
What is that, like 15 Democratic states in the top 20? Not bad, as far as $h!*holes go.
I know this is taking us off topic a bit, but do I understand your US tax situation and GWAE's contention correctly:-Quote: GWAEPeople who are not currently poor or close to it don't understand the difference a few hundred can make. Sure I can take my $11 and stick it in a box and claim it at the end of the year but like you said, it would be odd to take $11 out of the account when I could put that towards preschool or buy food. When I don't have the $11 the choice is easy. However at the end of the year it is nice to take the $400 and pay something off or take the kids somewhere or even take a nice weekend somewhere when we couldn't earlier.
IRS take monthly tax in excess of what's due as 'witholding' and at end of tax year, a rebate is issued? And am I correct that GWAE asserts a preference for that situation, compared to having the correct amount witheld, on the basis that the monthly amount is trivial and would get absorbed into regular cost of livcing, but the end of year rebate is significant?
If my undertanding is correct, I can't get my head around the preference for the rebated over-payment.
And yes. I've lived in poverty, when my parents were poor, low paid work and poor cash management.
Quote: darkozAnd they probably dont want you there either
U mad?
Quote: OnceDearI know this is taking us off topic a bit, but do I understand your US tax situation and GWAE's contention correctly:-
IRS take monthly tax in excess of what's due as 'witholding' and at end of tax year, a rebate is issued? And am I correct that GWAE asserts a preference for that situation, compared to having the correct amount witheld, on the basis that the monthly amount is trivial and would get absorbed into regular cost of livcing, but the end of year rebate is significant?
If my undertanding is correct, I can't get my head around the preference for the rebated over-payment.
And yes. I've lived in poverty, when my parents were poor, low paid work and poor cash management.
The amount of taxes withheld is generally in line with your estimated salary, but most people have deductions that will end up lowering your tax bill. In America, most lower and many middle income people have come to look at their "tax return" checks as a yearly bonus, of sorts. Some plan vacations with it, some payoff Christmas debt, many borrow against it. It's sort of like the old Christmas Clubs banks used to offer. Plant an acorn a week and eventually you have a forest.
Tax is withheld from your weekly check as if that check is one of 52 such checks for the year. If one week, you make $500, tax is withheld as if you were making $26,000.
If the next week you earn $1000, that sum is taxed as if you earned $52,000 for the year. More earnings push you into different brackets so one week you might pay 15% tax on the $500, but 18% on the $1,000. At the end of the year, your actual tax rate will usually vary from what was withheld.
On the other hand, some folks claim extra dependents and have too little withheld and end up paying at tax time. That seems to get more common the higher up the economic ladder you get. Some people file quarterly taxes, rather than annual.
It obviously is more complicated but that's the elevator explanation.
Quote: OnceDear
If my undertanding is correct, I can't get my head around the preference for the rebated over-payment.
It just depends on the circumstance.
In my situation, I have a set salary but I'm always messing around with my 401k contributions and other investments, so I have no idea what my taxable income will be by the end of the year. My wife is self-employed and runs two small businesses, so she has no idea what her taxable income will be by the end of the year, either. So, I actually pay EXTRA towards taxes every paycheck, because we would rather be paying too much throughout the year and get that money back than find out we weren't paying enough and owe like $3,000.
Quote: RogerKintU mad?
Im sure thats ur goal along with maxpen
But no.
Quote: OnceDearI know this is taking us off topic a bit, but do I understand your US tax situation and GWAE's contention correctly:-
IRS take monthly tax in excess of what's due as 'witholding' and at end of tax year, a rebate is issued? And am I correct that GWAE asserts a preference for that situation, compared to having the correct amount witheld, on the basis that the monthly amount is trivial and would get absorbed into regular cost of livcing, but the end of year rebate is significant?
If my undertanding is correct, I can't get my head around the preference for the rebated over-payment.
And yes. I've lived in poverty, when my parents were poor, low paid work and poor cash management.
Yea thats pretty much the way it works but more complicated
The IRS doesnt trust people to squirrel away their money properly every week and then have to pay a large end of year sum. Thats probably true for the most part. People spend when they have extra leaving then dry come tax time
Same thing with gambling jackpots. Taxes are taken out immediately for large wins because the IRS doesnt trust us to put the correct amount aside
From a penny pinching perspective its better to just pay end of year. I dont think the average american would have all the funds to pay if we did it that way
Not over this stuff.Quote: MrVJesus wept.
Quote: darkoz
Same thing with gambling jackpots. Taxes are taken out immediately for large wins because the IRS doesnt trust us to put the correct amount aside
I've never had federal taxes withheld from large jackpots,Normally you are given the option, at least on slots.
Quote: HunterhillI've never had federal taxes withheld from large jackpots,Normally you are given the option, at least on slots.
I know in nys the only place i have won anything over $5k taxes are automatically withheld for both state and federal. Thats a fact
I assumed that was part of IRS requirements. Strange if its only a state by state requirement
And certainly if you won a million dollar lottery sized jackpot you would have taxes removed upfront im assuming
Quote: rsactuary10K jackpot in LV and nothing was taken out.
Damn NYS. Maybe Maxpen was right.
Real sh-thole
Won $8k last week. Taxes taken out automatically. Its happened to me before
Quote: darkozI know in nys the only place i have won anything over $5k taxes are automatically withheld for both state and federal. Thats a fact
I assumed that was part of IRS requirements. Strange if its only a state by state requirement
And certainly if you won a million dollar lottery sized jackpot you would have taxes removed upfront im assuming
I have won over 5k in N.Y. state no federal or state taxes were witheld,this was at a native American casino so maybe that's why.
Quote: HunterhillI have won over 5k in N.Y. state no federal or state taxes were witheld,this was at a native American casino so maybe that's why.
Yea just did a little research
Apparently its NYS racinos controlled by NYS lottery because legally all jackpots are considered lottery winnings
:(((
Quote:The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget. That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-us-government-is-set-to-borrow-nearly-dollar1-trillion-this-year-an-84-percent-jump-from-last-year/ar-BBIDDl0?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Quote: OnceDearI know this is taking us off topic a bit, but do I understand your US tax situation and GWAE's contention correctly:-
IRS take monthly tax in excess of what's due as 'witholding' and at end of tax year, a rebate is issued? And am I correct that GWAE asserts a preference for that situation, compared to having the correct amount witheld, on the basis that the monthly amount is trivial and would get absorbed into regular cost of livcing, but the end of year rebate is significant?
If my undertanding is correct, I can't get my head around the preference for the rebated over-payment.
And yes. I've lived in poverty, when my parents were poor, low paid work and poor cash management.
Your understanding is correct, and is a common thing among what one could describe as the poor and lower middle classes. $10/week and $520 once a year lump are the same thing if you ignore the time value of money. In previous tax cuts of 2001 and IIRC 2009, taxes were cut retroactively mid-year. So the IRS sent out "rebate" checks, a lump sum of $400 in 2001 and I forger what but about the same in 2009. This time taxes were cut before the year started there can be no "rebate."
GWAE's complaint is along the lines of lets call it the Daily Starbucks lesson. You think nothing of spending $3-5 at Starbucks each day because it is a little fix. The average consumer does not realize they could be dropping $500-1,200 per year there.
What I do not get is the complaining about it being "Just $11 per week," If a tax of $11 per week was proposed, the same people would complain just as loud. If they want the $11 withheld to get the end-of-yer bonus effect, they can just ask their HR department to let them fill out a new W-4 and have the $11 deducted.
And yes, I have been broke to the point I had to move back home with family. Like others here, I clawed my way out and up. Not as dramatic as some here, more than others. But when I was broke, I would not complain about anything extra in my pay.
That will never end because the class warfare and envy game has been Page 1 of their playbook for years. And sadly, many fall for it.
Have a Great Day everyone, off to work for me to maximize an opportunity.
And welcome back AZ & AMS.
Just for fun ($hiz and giggles)
All casinos suddenly change roulette to 3 zeros and all craps tables to crapless craps thereby raising their profits on the -ev masses (poor masses)
These -ev masses dont generally understand how the economics of casinos work and dont notice or care enough about the extra vig. They lose faster and wind up with less money. Playing for shorter times even causes them to lose many social programs (less time played less comps offered) but the huddled masses just attribute this to life suffered in general and either dont vote against these changes or blithely continue gambling at the higher vig
Meanwhile to make themselves look good the casinos announce the extra profits will benefit all live poker players (hard working middle-class) by adding 1% of these extra casino profits into all their live poker games so more players are in the money.
The average live poker player will see an estimated $11 extra a week playing poker 40 hours a week live
The casinos tout how fantastic they are to their poker players with huge billboards that say "making Vegas great again"
Casinos also tout trickle down economics with several casinos stating they are passing the profits down by giving $1000 extra per year to qualified -ev players in the form of freeplay
However at the same time they cancel many players cards removing their accounts and comps without notice because they can (Samstown casinos Sams Club are the first to do this) players get no warning. They simply show up and find the Sams Club closed
The casinos meanwhile pocket Billions of dollars in extra money from the bulk of the higher vig
Live poker players all go on WizardofVegas asking why are people not happy with $11 extra a week in poker winnings
When pointed to what is happening with the masses the poker players state they made their choices in life
Quote: darkozLet me give you guys a hypothetical casino example of how liberals feel about the tax cuts
Just for fun ($hiz and giggles)
All casinos suddenly change roulette to 3 zeros and all craps tables to crapless craps thereby raising their profits on the -ev masses (poor masses)
To make themselves look good they announce the extra profits will benefit all live poker players (hard working middle-class) by adding 1% of these extra casino profits into all their live poker games so more players are in the money.
The average live poker player will see an estimated $11 extra a week playing poker 40 hours a week live
The casinos tout how fantastic they are to their poker players with huge billboards that say "making Vegas great again"
The casinos meanwhile pocket Billions of dollars in extra money from the bulk of the higher vig
Accurate up until the last part. The part you missed is where the casino switches the odds in the ultra high limit room to actually be +EV, but the minimum bet is $100k.
The casino funds that high limit table with trillions in extra debt. And then when they start going broke, they blame the homeless guy panhandling outside for ruining their profits.
Quote: gamerfreakQuote: darkozLet me give you guys a hypothetical casino example of how liberals feel about the tax cuts
Just for fun ($hiz and giggles)
All casinos suddenly change roulette to 3 zeros and all craps tables to crapless craps thereby raising their profits on the -ev masses (poor masses)
To make themselves look good they announce the extra profits will benefit all live poker players (hard working middle-class) by adding 1% of these extra casino profits into all their live poker games so more players are in the money.
The average live poker player will see an estimated $11 extra a week playing poker 40 hours a week live
The casinos tout how fantastic they are to their poker players with huge billboards that say "making Vegas great again"
The casinos meanwhile pocket Billions of dollars in extra money from the bulk of the higher vig
Accurate up until the last part. The part you missed s where the casino switches the odds in the ultra high limit room to actually be +EV, but the minimum bet is $100k.
The casino funds that high limit table with trillions in extra debt. And then when they start going broke, they blame the homeless guy panhandling outside for ruining their profits.
I think i will hire you as my editor :)
Also added an extra paragraph to that about bonuses if you wanna peruse it again
Quote: darkoz
All casinos suddenly change roulette to 3 zeros
For the love of God, please don't give them ideas like this!
Quote: AZDuffmanFor the love of God, please don't give them ideas like this!
Sorry AzDuffman but its already been done. Do a google search for Sands Roulette
Quote: darkozSorry AzDuffman but its already been done. Do a google search for Sands Roulette
Grrrr, You know, I was having a fairly nice Sunday before that!
The layout is different than I would have imagined, I would have just had all 2 o'z at the head of each line. But that might confuse the betting a row bet.
Sad part is the article is right, most do not care.
Come on, Quintuple-Zero, one time!
