General Discussion

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

27. I live in an expensive area, and am still recovering from a divorce that wiped me out

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 09:00 AM

Aug 2012

The end of my working life is looming, and I have to prepare for something they used to call "retirement." Saving money isn't a luxury for me. My savings budget is considerably more than yours, but it has to be. My primary goal is to remain financially independent for the rest of my life. Comparing your financial situation to mine is meaningless.

I'm happy for you that you can get by on such a low income. My overall income tax rate for last year was about 17%. The idea of doubling it (not just bumping up the marginal rates for the top tiers) seems outrageous to me. How are people supposed to run their family budgets if they don't have any assurance that government won't make radical changes to tax rates?

Stop changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1955: 51.2%. 2007: 16.6%. [View all] KansDem Jul 2012 OP

outrageous riverwalker Jul 2012 #1

"They didn't have a diagnosis of PTSD back then,... KansDem Jul 2012 #4

They knew about PTSD but they created different names for it. I believe they thought Uncle Joe Jul 2012 #21

Well, they did have abundant deaniac21 Jul 2012 #2

The US federal budget for 1955 was the equivalent of $68.4 billion in 2010 dollars slackmaster Jul 2012 #3

It's taken over a decade of tax cuts to build the deficit to its current level. Doremus Jul 2012 #5

Yes, tax cuts have to be offset with spending cuts, or they bust the budget slackmaster Jul 2012 #6

You forgot the sarcasm thingy.... Scuba Jul 2012 #7

You generate more revenue when you can. When you can't, you cut expenses. slackmaster Jul 2012 #11

And what's to stop us from raising taxes on the wealthiest? Aside from political will, that is. Scuba Jul 2012 #12

There's no reason not to, but no matter how much it won't be enough to fix the long-term problem slackmaster Jul 2012 #13

Sure they can... Scuba Jul 2012 #14

OK, so you break open the piggy bank and take every penny held by the top 400 slackmaster Jul 2012 #15

Why would you stop at 400? Why not tax the top 10%... and tax them and tax them.... Scuba Jul 2012 #17

Taxing the rich is fine. I'm all for it. The problem is if the spending problem isn't addressed, slackmaster Jul 2012 #19

They already decided that, hence I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than Rmoney. Scuba Jul 2012 #22

I agree with you on the priorities. We've pissed away TRILLIONS on counter-productive wars. slackmaster Jul 2012 #24

that is it we got to stop spending all this money on war ThomThom Aug 2012 #30

$10 million each? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #9

I meant 400 families paying $4.3 billion annually per family slackmaster Jul 2012 #10

it's not ALL about the Fab 400 hfojvt Jul 2012 #16

Once we've pushed everyone down to the present median income, there will be only one thing left... slackmaster Jul 2012 #20

well invading Canada is always a good thing hfojvt Jul 2012 #23

$109,400 isn't a whole lot more than I make, and I'm far from rich slackmaster Jul 2012 #25

no, it seems like a primary goal hfojvt Aug 2012 #26

I live in an expensive area, and am still recovering from a divorce that wiped me out slackmaster Aug 2012 #27

such a low income hfojvt Aug 2012 #28

A living wage in Kansas, but you couldn't come anywhere near buying a house in San Diego on that slackmaster Aug 2012 #29

"you might think that it's hopless, beyond our control hfojvt Aug 2012 #31

oh boy, it's the Rightwing myth of runaway spending hfojvt Jul 2012 #18

kr & fuck them all HiPointDem Jul 2012 #8