Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
savageangler

$684.93 per day reality check

5 posts in this topic

Do you thing they are out of touch with the average American? I do.

Obamanomics - Is $250,000 per Year Rich?

Posted By:Ariel Nelson

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 per year. That may seem like a lot of money, but it depends a lot on where you live.

Someone with an income of $250,000 in Paducah, Ky., for instance, would need to make $586,000 in New York City to maintain the same lifesytlye. So, maybe Uncle Sam needs to work in a cost-of-living component to the tax code.

Using a cost of living calculator from Bankrate.com, we compared what $250,000 translates to in various parts of the country. Here's is a sample of what we found:

In contrast, a person making $250,000 in New York would only need $106,000 to live in Paducah. The biggest driver of the cost differences is housing. A comparable home in New York would cost $1.1 million vs. $0.2 million in Paducah. Rent for a comparable apartment, would be $3,425 vs. $550 per month.

Other costs are also significantly higher, but are much smaller in absolute terms - a doctor visit is nearly double, a hair cut is 50 percent higher and even bowling is three times more costly in NYC.

You would expect consumer goods players like Proctor and Gamble [PG 70.08 0.24 (+0.34%) ] and Coca-Cola [KO 53.83 0.31 (+0.58%) ] and retailers like Wal-Mart [WMT 59.67 0.67 (+1.14%) ] and Home Depot [HD 27.35 0.33 (+1.22%) ] to take these factors into account in their pricing models. So should the government think about cost of living when discussing income taxes? People in higher cost areas like New York and California might vote yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you thing they are out of touch with the average American? I do.

Obamanomics - Is $250,000 per Year Rich?

Posted By:Ariel Nelson

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 per year. That may seem like a lot of money, but it depends a lot on where you live.

Someone with an income of $250,000 in Paducah, Ky., for instance, would need to make $586,000 in New York City to maintain the same lifesytlye. So, maybe Uncle Sam needs to work in a cost-of-living component to the tax code.

Using a cost of living calculator from Bankrate.com, we compared what $250,000 translates to in various parts of the country. Here's is a sample of what we found:

In contrast, a person making $250,000 in New York would only need $106,000 to live in Paducah. The biggest driver of the cost differences is housing. A comparable home in New York would cost $1.1 million vs. $0.2 million in Paducah. Rent for a comparable apartment, would be $3,425 vs. $550 per month.

Other costs are also significantly higher, but are much smaller in absolute terms - a doctor visit is nearly double, a hair cut is 50 percent higher and even bowling is three times more costly in NYC.

You would expect consumer goods players like Proctor and Gamble [PG 70.08 0.24 (+0.34%) ] and Coca-Cola [KO 53.83 0.31 (+0.58%) ] and retailers like Wal-Mart [WMT 59.67 0.67 (+1.14%) ] and Home Depot [HD 27.35 0.33 (+1.22%) ] to take these factors into account in their pricing models. So should the government think about cost of living when discussing income taxes? People in higher cost areas like New York and California might vote yes.

I love this fight over who is in touch with the average american. i got news for you. neither candidate is. McCain with 6 houses and beliefs and barak obamas comments, associations, and beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing about averages. They're just....well....average.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some interesting numbers from "Wealth, Income and Power" by Dr. G. William Domhoff, U of California:

2001 Net Worth: Top 20% of population have 85%, Top 1% = 33%

2001 Financial Wealth: Top 20% owns 91%, Top 1% = 40%

I'll try to update these figures to 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said "they" I guess I should have been more specific.

I meant the media, not the politicians. I do agree with you though, the majority of the politicians (at the national level) are really out of touch with how the "average" American lives.

I just wonder what percentage of the more conservative individuals, who believe the democrats are going to raise their taxes, are at the $250K (personal income) level.

I am in the Bill Clinton camp, leaning conservative on the fiscal side and leaning liberal on the social side. Hopefully we can get back to that program in the near future, both parties have the opportunity to bring us there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     ........if you are member of the LIVs. My 2nd graders think I am really smart at math as well. 
    •   No, but they wouldn't send them all to Belle Plaine where all the bleedies will take care of them, so what are we going to do? Man your pulling everything out of the old Libertarian hang book tonight.
    • Manafort was dumped quicker than a cheap date.   #pence2018
    •   No and no, I read it closely, but down here I shoot first then ask questions.                          
    •   Nice try.   You want me to rip apart your beloved Portugal?  There are hole everywhere.   First thing is first. This is a government policy, so this comes into play faster then a bullet..   " ...many of the problems stemmed not necessarily from a disagreement over the facts but a disagreement over which facts matter when it comes to interpreting the effects of decriminalisation."   Just like you Dave, only using the facts that fit your narrative.     HIV - down yes.   Due to eradicating drug dens, availability of needles, health awareness.   Deaths, over dose - yes (arguably)   Due to access of real drugs, not designer, dangerous synthetic weeds.     Homicides - yes/no Also there is no data collected for drug related homicides.       Drug users are not deemed criminals but as sick. Which immediately becomes a public expense.       -"" Goulão himself is skeptical of some aspects of marijuana reform in places like the United States, which he says can conflate medical use with recreational markets. "Sometimes I feel the promoters of this discussion are mixing things together using a lack of intellectual seriousness (Big Dave & Purple)," he said.""     This is just in 5 minutes, I'll go on doing this all day long. Leave you laying on the floor.   By the way, you just cut and paste articles. In no way way have you presented an intelligent reason why decriminalization would curb drug use.   Keep pasting,       

    • Come on Del like any good law we have to pass it to find out what is in it.
    • If you guys (Dave et al) are so "end the war on drugs" you ought to be able to say what that means.  How can you advocate something that you can't, or won't, define?    
    • You dont care about his statements on the 2nd amendment or his ties with radical mooslims as you put it?  
    •   I don't reside in his district and have no power to vote for or against him so I don't spend much of my free time thinking about him.
    •   But your OK with paying for people to sit in prison?   The reason you want to keep drugs criminalized is because they are dangerous, is it not?
  • Our Sponsors