Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#452 Jan 18 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
However, I doubt comparing Romney's tax rate to someone in the $50-$75k range would have had the same value to you as comparing it to someone making $38.7k.

"...Households making between $50,000 and $75,000..."

Yes. And households making over $1M paid nearly 30%. What is your point?

That "households" aren't "someones", they're typically several "someones" living together and combining paychecks. I thought that was obvious but I've been overestimating you a lot lately. Shame on me.


You're still playing word games. Who cares? No one considers a household earning between $50-$75k "poor", do they? So you're really making a big deal out of nothing. Which I suppose is what you set out to do in the first place, so it's not surprising at all. OMG! Romney pays the same tax rate as some poor working class person!!! Well, not really, but never let facts get in the way of a good bit of rhetoric.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#453 Jan 18 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
However, I doubt comparing Romney's tax rate to someone in the $50-$75k range would have had the same value to you as comparing it to someone making $38.7k.

"...Households making between $50,000 and $75,000..."

Yes. And households making over $1M paid nearly 30%. What is your point?

That "households" aren't "someones", they're typically several "someones" living together and combining paychecks. I thought that was obvious but I've been overestimating you a lot lately. Shame on me.


You're still playing word games. Who cares? No one considers a household earning between $50-$75k "poor", do they? So you're really making a big deal out of nothing. Which I suppose is what you set out to do in the first place, so it's not surprising at all. OMG! Romney pays the same tax rate as some poor working class person!!! Well, not really, but never let facts get in the way of a good bit of rhetoric.


They're poor in NYC or Silicon Valley.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#454 Jan 18 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
xantav wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I've got an idea for creating jobs. How about we lower the tax rate on middle class folks, and increase it on the really wealthy folks. Then middle class folks (whom make up the majority of the population) will have more disposable income. When they have more disposable income, they go out and buy stuff or have paid entertainment. With a higher demand for entertainment and stuff to purchase, companies will have to hire more people to meet up with the higher demand.

That's how capitalism is supposed to work anyways, right? Smiley: rolleyes

Stop your crazy talk! If tax rate goes up on the rich, they will stop being job creators.


It's not all or nothing. However, as you raise taxes on the rich, the rate at which they create jobs in the market will decrease. It's about degrees and it shouldn't be hard to noodle out. Everything else staying the same, if you raise taxes on a rich person (lets specifically look at rich business owners) then he will have fewer dollars after taxes on his profits than he would have had otherwise. Which means he's got fewer dollars to invest in expanding said business.

While the consumption argument is part of it, you don't create more jobs just because sales volume increases. You create more jobs if/when you expand your business, say by opening up a new store. And the decision to invest in such an expansion is absolutely going to be affected by tax rates and the resulting expected return on the investment.

Even if we assume the exact effects described, what do you think will happen? You've raised taxes on a businesses profits, but by lowering taxes on consumers the store sells more product and thus makes more total profit (makes it up in volume). Even if this actually does result in greater after tax money for the owner (and most likely it wont), he's got less incentive to open up a new store and a **** of a lot to just keep his investment where it is and take the money he's getting.


To be honest the tax effect is only part of it. Right now, the bigger deals are things like mandated health coverage coming in Obamacare, which effectively increases the per-employee cost of running a business and the concerns that high deficits and debt levels will cause more changes in fees and taxes down the line which the business owner can't accurately predict. That makes it a bad time to invest in anything solid (like opening a new store). And it's those kinds of investments which create jobs. That's how economic policies can negative effect job creation. The taxes (or proposed taxes) are only part of the problem.


Quote:
And if the low-middle class folk want more disposable income, they will get 2nd and 3rd jobs. Us poor folks should be happy with what we get and be thankful our betters let us work at all.


Um... sure?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#455gbaji, Posted: Jan 18 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No, they're not. That's quite comfortably middle class even in the more expensive places to live in this country. Obviously, you're not going to live in the wealthiest neighborhoods making that much, but you're not going to live in a slum either.
#456 Jan 18 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Yeah. Comfortable middle class lifestyle, all right.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#457 Jan 18 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In the "Nothing ever goes away" file, McCain's 200 page opposition-research file on Romney from the 2008 GOP primaries has surfaced on the webbernetz.

It's like the GOP is handing this stuff over on a silver platter.

Quote:

In October 2005, Romney signed bill expanding family planning services, including abortion counseling and morning-after pill.

In 1994 and 2002, Romney confirmed his support for Roe v. Wade decision and forcefully positioned himself as pro-choice in 1994 Senate race, saying “you will not see me wavering on that.

In 1994, Romney called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy first step toward having gays and lesbians “able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military” and said he would provide “more effective leadership” on *** rights issues than Ted Kennedy.

Romney promised to make *** partnership benefits a “hallmark of my leadership as governor” and has said he would attend *** weddings if invited

In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.

Massachusetts’ state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration

Romney implemented three rounds of tax changes (which he referred to as “closing loopholes”) which increased business taxes by an estimated $400 million per year

In 2002, Romney proposed installing 10 percent tax on private donations to political campaigns


I don't see this making him unelectable to the Dem base, barring his brand name of choice.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#458 Jan 18 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
xantav wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I've got an idea for creating jobs. How about we lower the tax rate on middle class folks, and increase it on the really wealthy folks. Then middle class folks (whom make up the majority of the population) will have more disposable income. When they have more disposable income, they go out and buy stuff or have paid entertainment. With a higher demand for entertainment and stuff to purchase, companies will have to hire more people to meet up with the higher demand.

That's how capitalism is supposed to work anyways, right? Smiley: rolleyes

Stop your crazy talk! If tax rate goes up on the rich, they will stop being job creators.


It's not all or nothing. However, as you raise taxes on the rich, the rate at which they create jobs in the market will decrease. It's about degrees and it shouldn't be hard to noodle out. Everything else staying the same, if you raise taxes on a rich person (lets specifically look at rich business owners) then he will have fewer dollars after taxes on his profits than he would have had otherwise. Which means he's got fewer dollars to invest in expanding said business.


You make it sound as if the wealthy in this country live paycheck to paycheck, and if we increase taxes on them they can't afford to invest. Don't make me laugh. People who make that much money don't even spend half of what they make in a year, if even that. They sit on their wealth and let it grow either by putting it in savings accounts, bonds, etc.

You want to know why us crazy liberals want to raise taxes on the wealthy? BECAUSE THEY CAN ******* AFFORD IT!

Seriously, check this article out. Right before the Great Depression, tax rates on the wealthy were at all time lows, and income inequality was at an all time high. During the 40's and 50's (largely considered the U.S.'s "Golden Years"), tax rates on the wealthy were higher and income inequality was significantly lower. In the late 20's and early 00's, the top 10% of earners in this country earned 50% of the income! And yet, even with all that extra money, we still entered The Great Depression and The Great Recession.

You can claim all you want that lower taxes on the supposed "job creators" help the economy, but history doesn't agree with you.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#459 Jan 18 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts


Why are you looking at pricing for one of the most expensive places to live and trying to pull that into your narrative?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#460 Jan 18 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"...Households making between $50,000 and $75,000..."
Yes. And households making over $1M paid nearly 30%. What is your point?
That "households" aren't "someones", they're typically several "someones" living together and combining paychecks. I thought that was obvious but I've been overestimating you a lot lately. Shame on me.
You're still playing word games. Who cares? No one considers a household earning between $50-$75k "poor", do they?

I wouldn't call a couple running a household on $12/hr each ($10.20/hr each before that 15%) "wealthy" or even necessarily "comfortable". I doubt very many people would.

Maybe some day you'll have a response that doesn't involve you crying "word games!" (I suppose that's your 2012 "Semantics!!!!") as you try desperately to spin a response.


It would put you at lower-middle class by most estimates. Whether or not you think the lower middle class are living comfortably right now depends on how often you open a newspaper. Or look out a window, I guess.

Edited, Jan 18th 2012 6:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#461 Jan 18 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts


So half of the people living in New York live in doorman buildings in Manhattan? You honestly read that and didn't see the gaping flaws? Aside from the consistent mis-use of the classic "median versus average" fallacy, someone earning the median income in New York City is not representative of someone who's living in a doorman building and it's absurd to assume that if said person cannot afford to live in such a place that they can't afford to live anywhere.

I'll also point out that a household making $48k a year is less well off than the range of households earning $50-$75k per year. And that's not even starting on the whole excluded middle bit. There's a huge range between not being poor, and being rich enough to live in a doorman building in Manhattan. We call that "middle class" for a reason.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#462 Jan 18 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,667 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that a household making $48k a year is less well off than the range of households earning $50-$75k per year.
I, for one, would not know what to do if you weren't here to point out that $48k a year is less than $50-75k a year.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#463 Jan 18 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"...Households making between $50,000 and $75,000..."
Yes. And households making over $1M paid nearly 30%. What is your point?
That "households" aren't "someones", they're typically several "someones" living together and combining paychecks. I thought that was obvious but I've been overestimating you a lot lately. Shame on me.
You're still playing word games. Who cares? No one considers a household earning between $50-$75k "poor", do they?

I wouldn't call a couple running a household on $12/hr each ($10.20/hr each before that 15%) "wealthy" or even necessarily "comfortable". I doubt very many people would.


I love how you can't help but represent things in the worst way possible. It's a "household". That means we're talking about the total income earned within a single home. Whether it's a couple each earning $12/hour, or one person earning $24/hour, it's the same total amount of money being earned. But you jumped at the lower number anyway, didn't you?

A total income in that range is more than sufficient to afford a decent home in a decent neighborhood in any area of the US. I never said they were "wealthy". I said that was comfortably middle class. And it **** well is. WTF?

Quote:
Maybe some day you'll have a response that doesn't involve you crying "word games!" (I suppose that's your 2012 "Semantics!!!!") as you try desperately to spin a response.


Stop playing word games and I'll stop calling you out for doing it.

Quote:

It would put you at lower-middle class by most estimates.


Um... How does an income range that starts above the median income and extends $25k higher equate to "lower middle class". If the middle class is that portion of the population in the middle (duh!), then the middle of middle class is at the median number (half above, half below). So a range of incomes that is entirely above that median can't be "lower middle class", can it?

Quote:
Whether or not you think the lower middle class are living comfortably right now depends on how often you open a newspaper. Or look out a window, I guess.


Or whether you are wearing liberal tinted glasses I suppose. Somehow, magically, half of the households in the US get by on less money than that $50-$75 range. You do remember that this is a nationwide value, not just New York or California where the costs of living are higher. So yeah, people making that much money are in general doing pretty well. Better than most people, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#464 Jan 18 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that a household making $48k a year is less well off than the range of households earning $50-$75k per year.
I, for one, would not know what to do if you weren't here to point out that $48k a year is less than $50-75k a year.


You'd think I wouldn't have to, but there you have it. Apparently, someone thought that pointing out that a household earning less than the range I was talking about can't afford to live in the most expensive housing market on the planet was somehow relevant. Don't blame me for this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#465 Jan 18 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... How does an income range that starts above the median income and extends $25k higher equate to "lower middle class".

Wiki wrote:
Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a male making $57,000 and a female making $40,000 with a combined households income of $97,000 as a typical middle class family. Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class.

Word games!!! OMG WORD GAMES!!! I USED WORDS OH NO!!!!! Smiley: cry


Edited, Jan 18th 2012 7:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#466 Jan 18 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


Why are you looking at pricing for one of the most expensive places to live and trying to pull that into your narrative?


Because Gbaji said 50-75K is "comfortably middle class" when I said it wasn't "not poor" in NYC. The article backs me up, with a couple having to approach the 100K mark there to afford a 2BR apartment.

ETA: It's actually pretty **** good where I live, for that matter.

Edited, Jan 18th 2012 8:51pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#467 Jan 18 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not all or nothing. However, as you raise taxes on the rich, the rate at which they create jobs in the market will decrease. It's about degrees and it shouldn't be hard to noodle out. Everything else staying the same, if you raise taxes on a rich person (lets specifically look at rich business owners) then he will have fewer dollars after taxes on his profits than he would have had otherwise. Which means he's got fewer dollars to invest in expanding said business.


You make it sound as if the wealthy in this country live paycheck to paycheck, and if we increase taxes on them they can't afford to invest.


What part of "it's not all or nothing" and "it's about degrees" made my post sound like that? It's not about suddenly making it so they can't afford to invest. It's about realizing that everything else being the same, if you reduce the amount of money someone has to invest, they will end out investing less money. It's not like this is hard to noodle out.

Quote:
Don't make me laugh. People who make that much money don't even spend half of what they make in a year, if even that. They sit on their wealth and let it grow either by putting it in savings accounts, bonds, etc.


Yeah. That other half is "invested". What do you think is done with the money they put in the bank? Banks loan that money out to people, like small business owners trying to start or expand their business. There is no such thing as idle money. You reduce the amount of money the wealthy have and you reduce the amount of things done with that money. And while not every dollar is going to result in something which employs people. the amount which does is a function of the whole amount. Reduce one and you reduce the other.

Quote:
You want to know why us crazy liberals want to raise taxes on the wealthy? BECAUSE THEY CAN @#%^ING AFFORD IT!


Yeah. I know that. But that's a terrible reason to raise taxes on a group. Also, it's not about whether the wealthy person can afford it, but how those taxes affect the things that wealthy people do with their money. You said it yourself, but seem unable to grasp the import of it. If a wealthy person only spends half his earnings on things for himself, then you'll have to raise taxes on him significantly before ever affecting his own person standard of living. However, while doing that, you will eliminate the funding for whatever he does with the other half. So less money in banks to make loans with, less money invested in the market, and less in all the things that the wealthy do with their money. And that will affect, not the wealthy, but those who are not wealthy but want to improve their own lives in some way. It most affects the middle class. Which is why raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for lowering them on the middle class isn't really a great idea. You're taking away with one hand what you give with the other. And let's face it. Having lower taxes doesn't help if you can't get a job because there's less investment capital floating around.

And of course, if you can't get a job, you aren't going to be middle class, so the tax break doesn't help you at all. So you're basically screwed over because liberals think that since taxing the rich doesn't hurt the rich, that there must be no negatives to doing it.

Quote:
Seriously, check this article out. Right before the Great Depression, tax rates on the wealthy were at all time lows, and income inequality was at an all time high. During the 40's and 50's (largely considered the U.S.'s "Golden Years"), tax rates on the wealthy were higher and income inequality was significantly lower. In the late 20's and early 00's, the top 10% of earners in this country earned 50% of the income! And yet, even with all that extra money, we still entered The Great Depression and The Great Recession.


Yeah. Because the tax rates didn't have anything to do with the causes of the Great Depression, just as they didn't have anything to do with our current economic problems.

Quote:
You can claim all you want that lower taxes on the supposed "job creators" help the economy, but history doesn't agree with you.


You've got it backwards. My argument is that raising taxes on the rich during an economic down period will tend to extend the length of the down period. It's the wrong thing to do at that time. We can debate the effect of taxes on economic growth during normal periods, and during those times there are reasons to raise taxes and reasons to lower them. But, once you're already in an economic hole, and unemployment is high the exact wrong thing to do is raise taxes on the rich.


I am not, nor have I ever argued that right now we should lower taxes on the rich and this will fix the economy. What I have argued is that we should not *raise* the taxes on the rich, or the economy will not recover (or not recover as quickly). And don't get caught up in the action being taken. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire has the effect of raising taxes, regardless of what we call it. Extending those taxes through this economic downturn is not "lowering taxes on the rich". It's keeping tax rates where they currently are. Semantics, I know.



As I mentioned in my earlier post, the far bigger factor for job creation and economic recovery is a sense of stability. It's not strictly about how much money the rich have or don't have. It's about their ability to predict what will happen if they do certain things with the money that they have. So when we've got half the people in government clamoring for higher taxes and regulations on the rich and big business, and their supporters seem to be operating on the reasoning you listed (tax them more because they can afford it), can you be surprised that they're going to be hesitant to put their money into anything that they can't take it out of quickly if they need to? When you don't know how much taxes might change, or where they might be raised, you can't intelligently choose where to put your money. And this affects job creation directly because any investment which creates jobs will tend to be a longer term investment. If I buy gold with my money, I'm not creating very many jobs, but I can sell that gold and spend the money on something else pretty quick if I need to. If I spend that money leasing office space, and buying desks and computers and whatnot so I can hire people to do something, I can't get out of that investment quickly if the winds shift. I want to know that they wont shift (much) before I'm going to spend money on something like that.


Again, this is not an all or nothing thing. It's about degrees. Some investment will go into things which result in job creation. But not as much, and not at the same relative rate as would if those with the money were more confident in the direction things are going.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#468 Jan 18 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
catwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:


Why are you looking at pricing for one of the most expensive places to live and trying to pull that into your narrative?


Because Gbaji said 50-75K is "comfortably middle class" when I said it wasn't "not poor" in NYC.


Huh? Wasn't "not poor" is the same as saying that it is poor. How can a household income in the top 50% in New York be "poor". It's not. Not unless you're now claiming that New York City has a poverty rate above 50%.

You aren't claiming that, are you?

Quote:
The article backs me up, with a couple having to approach the 100K mark there to afford a 2BR apartment.


In a doorman building in Manhattan. You know? Where the super rich people live? I'm quite certain that there are plenty of 2BR apartments in New York City which are well within the affordable range for a household earning $50-$75k.

Quote:
ETA: It's actually pretty **** good where I live, for that matter.


It's pretty **** good for almost anywhere. As long as you don't adopt a "live in the richest neighborhood in the world or bust" attitude.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#469 Jan 18 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... How does an income range that starts above the median income and extends $25k higher equate to "lower middle class".

Wiki wrote:
Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a male making $57,000 and a female making $40,000 with a combined households income of $97,000 as a typical middle class family. Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class.

Word games!!! OMG WORD GAMES!!! I USED WORDS OH NO!!!!! Smiley: cry


So you've shown that sociologists are idiots who are completely out of touch with real people's incomes. You'll get no argument from me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#470 Jan 18 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I'm quite certain that there are plenty of 2BR apartments in New York City which are well within the affordable range for a household earning $50-$75k.


Hahahahah. Wow. Don't know anyone who lives in New York city, apparently.

So, here's Craigslist, NYC. Could you find...oh 5 apartments that are well within the affordable range for a household earning 75k?

Thanks

http://newyork.craigslist.org/aap/

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#471 Jan 18 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,866 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm quite certain that there are plenty of 2BR apartments in New York City which are well within the affordable range for a household earning $50-$75k.


Hahahahah. Wow. Don't know anyone who lives in New York city, apparently.

So, here's Craigslist, NYC. Could you find...oh 5 apartments that are well within the affordable range for a household earning 75k?

Thanks

http://newyork.craigslist.org/aap/



Um... The first listing? 2 br for $1400/month. Surely a household earning $50-$75k can afford the $16,800/year it'll cost to live there.


You didn't bother to look, did you?


EDIT: You did say to find 5. On that page, I found 17 2br apartments for less than $2000/month, many of them in the sub-$1500/month range. Easily affordable for anyone in that $50-$75k range.

Edited, Jan 18th 2012 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#472 Jan 18 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Um... The first listing? 2 br for $1400/month. Surely a household earning $50-$75k can afford the $16,800/year it'll cost to live there.


Probably a stretch for a family making 75k, close to impossible for the family making 30k, but anyway, let's stipulate that was affordable. Where are the other 4?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#473 Jan 18 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you've shown that sociologists are idiots who are completely out of touch with real people's incomes. You'll get no argument from me.

What's that? I was right? You sure you don't want to break down and start screaming "Word games!" some more?

Well, so long as you agree that I was right even if you had to admit in your own little precious way Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#474 Jan 18 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... The first listing? 2 br for $1400/month. Surely a household earning $50-$75k can afford the $16,800/year it'll cost to live there.

Probably a stretch for a family making 75k, close to impossible for the family making 30k, but anyway, let's stipulate that was affordable. Where are the other 4?

At $50k, using the "no more than a third of your salary" guideline, you're looking at $1,250 or less.

I assume you meant $50k and not $30k.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#475 Jan 18 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Easily affordable for anyone in that $50-$75k range.


Yeah... really not so much. Spending 35% or more of your net income on housing really isn't "affordable" by any reasonable measure. Possible? Sure. $1400 at 75k, maybe. But close. $2000, not really. It's where a lot of people are right now, one bad event from disaster, unable to save, etc.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#476 Jan 18 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Hahahahah. Wow. Don't know anyone who lives in New York city, apparently.

Out of curiosity, I looked at one of those cost-of-living city converters. San Diego to Queens requires a 23% increase in salary, to Brooklyn is 37% and to Manhattan (heh) was 68%.

I suppose your money goes further in San Diego when you have an apartment costing 35% of your income than it does in New York where life is considerably more expensive in general.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 91 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (91)