ptatc

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:11 PM) We're talking about two different things. Total percentage of all tax revenue derived is quite different from marginal tax rates for each household. It's back to that overall question of fairness or equity. , Buffett told NBC Nightly News that he pays a smaller tax rate than multiple employees in his office. In 2011, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." In the article, Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office." In 2013, he told CNBC that while his tax rate rose 8 to 9 points more that year, "The differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest-paying taxpayer in the office." source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...lower-tax-rate/ And we're not even considering corporations: They're only paying between 10-15%, and that's WITH a 35-39.2% (including state tax) OFFICIAL CORPORATE TAX BURDEN. Imagine what it will be when they cut it by exactly 40%. This tax bill has enough loopholes and "special cases" to drive a Brinks truck through. U.S. companies face the highest official corporate tax rate in the world. But there's a big difference between the rates set out by law and the cash that's actually collected. Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower. http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/econo...rate/index.html Not sure what you're talking about. My comment was just that the people who have the highest taxable income (500,000 and up) pay the most into the IRS revenue. They do. They pay by far the most amount. Who can make all the other points you want but these people still pay the most into the revenues collected by taxes.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:37 PM) I will absolutely keep you posted. Right now, I have them in a standard what year do you plan to retire fund. This is what I do. Is this a smart way for those of us who don't know much about the different funds?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 02:48 PM) It’s not daily operations. It’s the purchase of the team, I’m sure Jeter and associates had to lay out a plan to MLB explaining exactly what they were going to be doing after the purchase to start paying off the debt they just acquired. When you buy a house or a business the banks go through everything and ask how you will pay for things and where the money is coming from. If it was any other team tearing down and rebuilding, yea it would be daily operations. But the ink wasn’t even dry yet and Jeter starts selling off guys for pennies on the dollar and getting players back that certainly aren’t worth anywhere close to the players they were traded for. I’m sure Manfred knew they were gonna tear it down I'm sure the debt was discussed. But did it necessarily include "we are trading Stanton" "we are trading Ozuna" Or was it more "we are going to follow the White Sox/Houston/Cubs model and trade assets for a rebuild. I don't see how they are doing anything different than other teams like the White sox. Their commodities are different due to the contracts and the fans aren't tolerating it like the sox fans.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 08:10 PM) Not "just because they have it" so much as "because that's what pays for society to be a society". that can be said already because of the vast amount more they pay than everyone else.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 08:08 PM) No, they don't, because for the Top 1-2%, the majority of their income is classified as a capital gain and taxed at a much lower percentage than a CEO/executive salary. It's the same exact reason Silicon Valley employees are always fighting for stock options, compared to salary/benefits packages. Being on the right side of a huge IPO offering for a Facebook, Nvidia, Uber, etc., sets your family up for life when you're only in your 20's or 30's. The average member of the middle class, because of the changes in itemization/standard deduction...is MUCH more likely to pay those published rates or higher brackets than previously due to changes in the tax code. Whereas no members of the Top 10% are really paying anything more than their salaries at those higher Federal rates (once again, those salaries being a small percentage of their overall financial assets). Not according to the IRS. Look at the tax revenue collected table on their website. The last data was from 2015. There were 150,493,263 submissions. Only 99,012,731 submissions were considered to have "taxable income" Of those 1,320,338 made 500,000 or more. The tax collected made up 25.1% of all taxes collected. That means 1.3% of the people who paid taxes paid 25% of all tax revenue. If you look at all submissions, that .01% of all people who submitted taxes, paid for 25% of all tax revenue. They may hide a great deal of taxable income but they are still paying a a vast amount more than others.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:49 AM) As a percentage of his income, it is far, far less. But the highest tax bracket has a higher % to pay than the lower tax brackets. So the rich pay more by % and more by gross amount. By saying "as a percentage of their income" its like saying you want what they have just because they have it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 06:18 AM) There was plenty to see there, for once I applaud LeBatard for going after Manfred. He was absolutely correct, there was no way that Manfred wasn’t aware that Jeter was going to slash payroll after acquiring the team, and Manfred kept lying about it Why would Manfred know about the daily operations of one of the owners?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) Less of one, and substantially so in many cases, for whatever it's worth. I want different tax policy. I live in a world where this is the current tax policy. An individual voluntarily paying more is completely meaningless, and following the current rules doesn't make one a hypocrite. I'd gladly give up whatever tiny benefit I may see from this tax plan for something different, but that's not an actual choice I have. The old tax brackets were 10,15,25,28,33,35,39.6. the new tax brackets are 10, 12,22,24,32,35,37 so other than the lowest bracket the benefit of the tax cut decreases for the wealthiest but the benefit is the greatest for the middle tiers.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) But that problem lies in the fact that there is no incentive to hire full time employees or give benefits. If for example the tax cut on corporations were tied to something like "Only corporations that have X% of full time employees and provide full benefits" then you would get a meaningful change. Weekly I get questions on how can my company avoid hiring people full time, giving out benefits, calling employees/ICs etc, all to try and make a little bit more profit for people who are already making 10-100x more per year than the employee they are trying to cut benefits to. this what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. How can this be done. i don't know the answer. I'm not a financial person by any stretch of the imagination. I'm in the medical field. i'm truly looking for opinions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:06 AM) This website has a graph showing "official" U-3 unemployment as well as U-6 unemployment, which includes underemployed and discouraged workers. http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate While we're a little bit above the low point of 7% U-6 of the late 90's boom economy, we're still at only 8% U-6 which is pretty low. Real wages have climbed somewhat but not nearly at the pace they did since 1970, when productivity and wage gains were essentially 1:1. http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ You're right that there are a lot of factors that go into wages and jobs, but we don't really see a lot of evidence that full employment produces enough upward pressure on wages to get them up to a minimum livable wage for everyone. but would full time employment on a larger scale make those who are working the full time jobs be able to have a more livable wage. Of course it won't apply to everyone. nothing applies to everyone.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) Many economists thought it was impossible to get unemployment this low. 4% unemployment is really low. Right now there are actually more low paying jobs than workers. The real question is, would higher wages cause employers to cut jobs and therefore increase unemployment. The answer is likely yes. If anything corporations should be having to pay for more benefits for employees, especially if those corporations are making massive profits. Things like "health insurance" should be obvious because sick workers cost time and money, so it makes no sense not to keep your workers healthy. this is true. But the stats are a little misleading with the number of "forced part-time" employment. They aren't considered unemployed but don't make enough money to not have 2 jobs. That is a large number. These are the many of the people needed 2 jobs to make ends meet. If they had a full time job with full time pay and benefits, it may change as well

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:56 AM) The wealth is obviously there, it's a matter of how our economic systems end up distributing it. We've already got worse income and wealth inequality than the peak of the Gilded Age. Agreed. Although I would use the term inequity not inequality. Inequality to me means everyone deserves an equal share. Whereas inequity to me means everyone deserves the same opportunity for the share.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) If our only two options are lot's of people employed, but still poor or mass unemployment. Maybe we live in a broken system. No doubt. That's why some changes need to be made. i think everyone agrees with that. It's just how to go about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Full employment should have an upward effect on wages, but we're near full employment now and have been multiple times over the last few decades while wages have largely remained flat. Here is some information from the Bureau of labor and statistics. Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9 percent in November. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult women (3.7 percent), Whites (3.6 percent), Blacks (7.3 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics (4.7 percent) showed little change. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but was down by 858,000 over the year. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.) still seems to me that there are far too many full time unemployed workers. The "involuntary part-time" workers especially. Many companies are now considering 30 per week "full time" to cut back on wages and benefits for workers, especially in retail. I don't think you can force companies to change the policies but if there were a shortage of workers the companies would become the "buyers" not "sellers" and may get them to change.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:41 AM) So minimum wage workers can have more minimum wage jobs to work? I suppose if you work 16 hours a day at two minimum wage that would give people a chance? I don't know the answer. I'm thinking about the overall socioeconomic structure. Is it better to have more people employed at a lower salary or more people employed at a higher salary and subsequently have more unemployed people.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 09:57 PM) Well, he is. It is ok to bring them up every once in a while in casual conversation but the constant barrage of snide comments, if you're doing it in a logical, constructive conversation it is one thing, but trying to antagonize me by making snide comments constantly shows a lack of respect. A workplace is supposed to be a team, the way I look at it is the people that are being paid more or are in higher positions than you are there because they have been doing it longer. Everyone is there because they bring something different to the table. I'm there to learn and do the tasks assigned. I guess I don't look at my boss, or anyone in that matter as an authority figure, but someone who is there because they have more knowledge than I do on the subject. If somehow the members of the team are not allowed to constructively criticize each other because there is some sort of pecking order, then the world is more f***ed than I gave it credit for. Everyone is supposed to be working toward a common goal, right? If I have valid, evidence-based reasons to disagree with someone(I'm talking about actually doing the job here, not politics), and it is good for the team/organization why should I keep my mouth shut, and let the team fail? If someone is so insecure that they can't take being made to look stupid when they have a stupid idea or process to get a job done, then they probably shouldn't be working. You brush it off and take it as a learning experience. I'm sure that everyone has been made to look stupid at one point or another at work, right? Here is the issue you have. By definition "boss" is an authority figure. If you hadn't figured that out, the fact he had the power to fire you should have shown you the light.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 07:30 AM) One start would be the right finally coming around on raising the minimum wage. If they are touting this as everyone will be given a raise and this isn't for the wealthy, the tax cut should more than pay for it being higher. They are so full of s*** their eyes are brown. Would another way to accomplish this be to create more jobs instead of raising the minimum wage?

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 06:10 PM) What actually happened to me was an indirect firing; My boss somehow found out my political views and started harassing me about them, I spoke up and said: "Can we just leave politics out of this, it has zero to do with my ability to do a job for you." My boss then chewed me out and I was subsequently dismissed. I can't imagine talking to my boss like that. I did get "my contract not renewed" by an MLB team when I drunkenly teased a superior (in position only) at a company picnic.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 05:47 PM) Social media is a form of communication now, where most people converse and discuss ideas. I try to keep my facebook account private, but I have no idea how my boss got into it. I don't post stuff on twitter other than what I want my public image to be. There have to be public/private groups. I know that the world works this way but I think it is bulls***. My facebook is between me and my friends, or at least I try to keep it that way with privacy settings. People don't discuss things in person as much anymore, but they converse every day online. People shouldn't have to go to anonymity among their friends to discuss politics online. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If it gets back to your employers you will get in trouble. In the old days when people actually talked, someone just leaked it out to the company and it was a rumor. Your facebook is not just between you and your friends (unless one of them sent it to your company). Obviously, someone else was able to see it. Now, they can provide proof you said it because it's in writing. If you don't want it to get back to the boss, don't write it. You can discuss politics but don't berate your boss or your company. I don't you would have gotten fired if it was a general political comment. Bringing in the employer was the issue.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 05:10 PM) Where did I say that there are no consequences for one's actions? Of course I know that actions have consequences, whether positive or negative. You don't mess with people's livelihood over petty s*** like political disagreement. Laws are there for a reason. If you're not breaking laws, there is zero reason for one to be fired for having personal beliefs. If businesses can't separate a person's personal and professional life, and you think it is okay to not have them be two completely separate entities, then I can't help you. What my employees do in their free time is none of my business. I think it's the other way around. If you can't see that what you do in a public manner doesn't reflect on your company or business, we can't help you. Any public critique of your company superiors will have consequences. It's not just politics, it's a black eye to the company that it's own employees don't like the company. That isn't good for business and will get you in trouble.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) I have a problem with this statement. You only represent your company when you are performing your job, at work or a business meeting or whatever. If companies think that every aspect of a person that they hire "represents their values" when not on the job then that is an invasion of privacy and opens up a whole new can of worms. Your job is your means of providing yourself income. It is not your entire existence. The fact that companies may believe this is, again mind control. When you're in your suit handing out your business card, yeah, you're representing your company. When you're at home shooting the s*** with your buddies, you're not representing anyone but yourself. This is where you are wrong. Anytime you do anything public you are representing everything about you, including work and family. The first thing all employers, for me it's applicants to school, do is look at facebook twitter and all forms of public representation to see if you will represent well. It's not an invasion of privacy if you put it out for the public to see. If you are at home and shooting the s*** with your buddies you're good. But as soon as you make it public, you're not. You can't honestly expect to blast and criticize your employers and expect their to be no consequences.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) I wasn't talking about Finfer's joke directly, but more to the idea that personal politics can cost you your job, if you make it public. I lost a job because I posted my own political views online and because my boss was disagreed with my post he fired me. It had zero to do with whether or not I did my job well, he didn't like that I called out corporate CEOs for lining their pockets instead of paying a living wage to their employees. That kind of behavior is dangerous. That would have gotten you fired at any point in time, not just in today's climate.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 03:41 PM) Isn't that injury pretty much impossible if his knee didn't directly hit the box? Seems like the argument is a moot point based on the injury alone. I would agree. Not impossible but highly unlikely.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 09:07 AM) I always wish I could be this way after seeing some celebrities and athletes but then realize they have the time and money stay in that kind of shape. It is their job to stay in that kind of shape, if they want to do it well. Hopefully, you take your job just as seriously.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 09:05 AM) I don't necessarily care about these kids being workout warriors to get an edge, but while they are navigating these age 19-22 years, I'd much rather them be a workout warrior than not taking their diet or offseason as seriously. The is no doubt that the dedication is the key. However if they are doing the wrong things that will increase their chances of injury, they may as well be not taking it seriously. As someone else said hopefully, they are listening to the Sox strength and conditioning staff.