Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Ľ Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Ľ Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-26-2017, 10:35 AM   #61
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,922
I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 11:02 AM   #62
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 11:28 AM   #63
DZ
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
DZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,352
Geez it was OK when it was Bernie's plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=FYAClOv3px4

DZ
Recreational Surfcaster
"Limit Your Kill - Don't Kill Your Limit"

Bi + Ne = SB 2

If you haven't heard of the Snowstorm Blitz of 1987 - you someday will.
DZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 12:08 PM   #64
Fishpart
Keep The Change
iTrader: (0)
 
Fishpart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Road to Serfdom
Posts: 3,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
1000 spent and 1000 invested are not the same
Letís talk about $1000 invested vs $1000 spent. If I invest, the $ goes against the Assets of a Company somewhere. The company I work for invests bigly in equipment and technology so they borrow money against invested assets to make that investment and pay some capital cost call it 5% so now my $1000 is doing the work of $1050. Our company pays all expenses and expects an investment to pay for itself in one year so the $1000 probably supported an employee for 100 hours (my portion of the total capital investment) at some wage; even $15/hr would mean someone else earned $1500 from y $1500. Any profit made on that asset is taxed and what is left is split up between the corporation and the investor (me) I earn since Trump took office 25% so my investment of $1000 is worth $1250 on paper, I pay 20% tax on 250 capital gain and the Government gets $50 and I net $200. So my $1000 investment ďparked in the marketĒ nets me $200, it nets the government at least $50, it nets some employee $1500, it nets a finance company $50 (which is also taxed at some level), the government confiscates (taxes) another 10% from the employee or $150, and whatever goods are produced are sold and intangibly improve someoneís life. So yes $1000 spent isnít the same as $1000 parked in the market. Bank $50, Employee $1500, government $200+, Investor $200 Total $1950 from $1000 just sitting there doing nothing..

ďItís not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,Ē Antonin Scalia
Fishpart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 12:11 PM   #65
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Nebe, you just got schooled.

Since you're ignorant and insane I'll break this down for you. The reason the economy is in the tank is because the banks don't have money to loan business so they can hire people and pay higher wages.

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I said that itís good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think Iím wrong, and that itís better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 12:19 PM   #66
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

You are not only what you describe as a poor writer, you are a poor reader. Some of my threads have not been about government. None of them have been anti-government this or that. Neither have any of my posts been anti-government. I am opposed to bad government. I am opposed to unconstitutional government. I am for good government. I am for constitutional government. I am for that government which governs best when it governs least. I am for self government. I am for equality before the law government. I am opposed to government of special interests and for special groups.

If your definition of "anti-government" is narrowed to any form or any instance of "government," then you are anti-government. You have issued a chit load of criticisms of the Trump Administration and especially against Trump, the President, himself. By your own definition, it would be hard to have a rational discussion with you.

Come to think of it . . .

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

Infrastructure was not taken care of when taxes were where they were. It was not taken care of even when a so-called stimulus package of billions of dollars were set aside to take care of infrastructure. So what would have been the magic wand to all of a sudden now the infrastructure would be repaired by keeping taxes where they were?

its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..
I's called restructuring the system to fit available revenue. Downsizing is one form of successful restructuring. Over extending any system beyond actual resources is a sure way to make that system, as you put it, "suffer"--even collapse. And constantly borrowing, without repaying on the principal, getting further and further in debt, will also cause a system to "suffer"--even to collapse. And creating a Ponzi scheme system wherein it pays returns to its investors (the "people" in a government system) from new capital (fiat money in a Ponzi government system) paid to the operators (government bureaucracy and its special interests and lobbyists who support it) by new investors (new generations, the children of the "people" in a government system), rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources (reasonable, affordable, taxes to support a rigorously defined, limited, and consistently responsible, well structured system of government), will eventually, as all Ponzi schemes do, collapse.

As you say, it doesn't require a degree in economics to understand that.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 12:25 PM   #67
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I said that itís good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think Iím wrong, and that itís better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 01:04 PM   #68
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They are a staple but don't last too long after harvest. I have been making a dish for special occasions for many years. Google potatoes w leeks and gruyere for a dish that will impress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 02:19 PM   #69
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.
I'm certain most liberals believe that. It's absurd.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 03:03 PM   #70
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'm certain most liberals believe that. It's absurd.
I don't know anyone that thinks that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 06:00 PM   #71
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing created an artificial bubble of bank reserves for which the Fed paid a secured higher interest to the banks than the banks could get from less secure loans to the private sector at the lower interest dictated by the Federal Reserve's low benchmark interest rates.

That coupled with the economic downturn after 2008 which lowered the demand for loans, made it more profitable for the banks to lend less to the private sector and depend more on the Fed interest payments to them on the money it was holding for them, and so was not being released at normal volume into the market in the forms of loans to the private sector.

This intrusion by the Fed Reserve distorted the normal relationship of bank deposits to loans. It created a huge bubble of artificial bank reserves, not related to market activity, which can create massive inflation when that reserve is released into the market. The economy has recovered since then and the demand for loans is rising, and expected to rise more if the public confidence in the economy remains. There may be a tricky balance for the banks in taking on a great amount of public deposits to add to their reserve bubble which could infuse too much money into the economy and cause the feared inflation. In any event, the market will have to correct for the ill conceived bubble created by massive quantitative easing. Let's hope it doesn't provoke another crash.

Eventually, when things return to normal, if they do, then private deposits to banks will again create the reserve they need to make loans.

Last edited by detbuch; 12-26-2017 at 06:08 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2017, 11:35 PM   #72
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I don't know anyone that thinks that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then why do most liberals say that trickle down doesnít help the economy?

Spence, if the wealthy donít burn their money or bury it, then how do they use it in a way that isnít beneficial to the economy? If they save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, or pay taxes with it, donít all of those things help the economy? Please explain, Iím all ears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 05:16 AM   #73
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Then why do most liberals say that trickle down doesn’t help the economy?

Spence, if the wealthy don’t burn their money or bury it, then how do they use it in a way that isn’t beneficial to the economy? If they save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, or pay taxes with it, don’t all of those things help the economy? Please explain, I’m all ears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 05:21 AM   #74
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishpart View Post
Letís talk about $1000 invested vs $1000 spent. If I invest, the $ goes against the Assets of a Company somewhere. The company I work for invests bigly in equipment and technology so they borrow money against invested assets to make that investment and pay some capital cost call it 5% so now my $1000 is doing the work of $1050. Our company pays all expenses and expects an investment to pay for itself in one year so the $1000 probably supported an employee for 100 hours (my portion of the total capital investment) at some wage; even $15/hr would mean someone else earned $1500 from y $1500. Any profit made on that asset is taxed and what is left is split up between the corporation and the investor (me) I earn since Trump took office 25% so my investment of $1000 is worth $1250 on paper, I pay 20% tax on 250 capital gain and the Government gets $50 and I net $200. So my $1000 investment ďparked in the marketĒ nets me $200, it nets the government at least $50, it nets some employee $1500, it nets a finance company $50 (which is also taxed at some level), the government confiscates (taxes) another 10% from the employee or $150, and whatever goods are produced are sold and intangibly improve someoneís life. So yes $1000 spent isnít the same as $1000 parked in the market. Bank $50, Employee $1500, government $200+, Investor $200 Total $1950 from $1000 just sitting there doing nothing..

so a 1000 invested is returning 950 dollars ???

so are you going to cover what spending 1000 does?
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 06:05 AM   #75
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed
love you Wayne, but this is just....good grief...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 08:31 AM   #76
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics
"your the reason they stay rich"

Oh, I am the reason that rich people are rich! Jeez, whatever magic wand I have that makes people wealthy, I should get around to using it on myself one of these days instead of living paycheck to paycheck. So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are only rich because of Republicans, not because of anything they did. What an astute observation.

"you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country"

Well, I live in cT, where liberals have ruled for 40 years. Our cities are FAR worse now than 40 years ago. So if you want to tell me that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives, you need to support that. The one study done on the subject, actually shows that conservatives are more charitable. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

"According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. "

And that's because of simple math. not because of theft. The wealthy have more money to invest than the rest of us. So when the economy grows, they will always benefit more than the rest of us. Out of curiosity, how would you stop this? Pass a law saying that people are no longer allowed to work or invest once their net worth hits some maximum? Is that something that you do in a free country?

"buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them"

I never said anything that stupid. But 90% of us can be middle class if we work hard and make good decisions, and most importantly, if we have good parents. Most of us can learn a trade, or graduate from a public university with a degree in nursing, teaching, accounting, physical therapy, etc...You don't have to be rich or have a 200 IQ to pull those things off. True or false?

"the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt."

Part of that is that we want to live way beyond our means. How many flat screen TVs, smart phones, and all that other crap, must one have?

Your fixation on the wealth is very telling, and very telling. You claim that the rest of us can only wait for their scraps. That's demonstrably false, pure liberal bullsh*t. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there's a million less for the rest of us. When she gets richer, that doe NOT make my life or your life any harder. Don't you see that? How can you not see that?

All of liberalism is now based on divisiveness - based on race, gender, economic class. Liberals always blame someone else for their problems, rather then ever taking responsibility.

Chances are, if you want to know the cause of your problems, look in the mirror.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 01:30 PM   #77
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country

The rich do well no matter which party is in power. Many of the rich support the Democrats and get favorable legislation in return. The Dems like to brag about how the richest states are run by Democrats, and the poorest by Republicans. Somehow, reality doesn't seem to fit your picture of who supports the 1%. There is a leftist political rhetoric that paints your picture, but it is, after all, political. And is meant to persuade "guys like you," as you put it.

The rich aren't rich because they are supported by a political party. Both parties receive support from the rich.



and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

You said a few posts ago that you own a home, pay your bills, and live comfortably. Are those scraps that fell to the floor? Those scraps are the envy of most people on this planet. And the tax plan is going to drop some more scraps to your floor. But because the 1% are doing so well, your scraps are an insult. Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics
Does the top 1% eat 35% of the food and own 35% of the homes, cars, clothes, toys, guns, televisions, computers, etc. in this country? What is meant by owning more wealth?

Does your "all debt" include the debt government owes? latest 2017 stats say that "Total Government And Personal Debt In The U.S. Has Hit 41 Trillion Dollars ($329,961.34 Per Household)." (https://thedailycoin.org/2017/07/27/...per-household/ And that does not include corporate debt.

So if the federal government debt is around $20 trillion, and the State and municipal debts are around 5 trillion, that leaves personal debt to be about $16 trillion. Which is well less than half the total debt owed in this country. Most of the debt is owed by government, supposedly borrowed on our behalf. And to whom is the government debt owed? A great deal of it is owed to the top 1%. And a lot of that money was borrowed from the top 1% by Democrat politicians--probably more than was borrowed by Republicans. Not that it matters who borrowed it, but gives a lie to your who supports the top 1%.

So the government has handed you a personal bill of $329,961.34. Thanks to both parties but mostly to the Democrats. Can you pay that? Of course not. So who is going to pay for it? Apparently, no one will. Not if the government keeps borrowing from the top 1% to pay for only the interest on the debt. Your children will be left the tab. So they will need a booming economy to provide the jobs and wealth that can chip away at that debt. I guess that's why some politicians, and economists think that structuring tax policies in favor of business growth is more important than merely lowering personal tax rates.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 03:01 PM   #78
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?
.
His opinion, that the wealthy get first dibs at the trough and the rest of us have to get by on the scraps, is liberal economics in one sentence. It is demonstrably false, and far beyond absurd. But it's always easier to blame the boogeyman for our lot in life, than it is to take responsibility for our own lot in life. Liberalism always looks to blame someone else, preferably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 03:03 PM   #79
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Liberalism always looks to blame someone else
One thing I'm grateful for this year is that my parents never allow me to grow up miserable like Jim and be filled with the type of hate he demonstrates here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 03:36 PM   #80
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,084
Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 03:49 PM   #81
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Looks like Trump's tax plan is already working, by getting rich folks to kick in their fair share

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 04:12 PM   #82
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,920
I told you guys... property taxes are going to get you in the ass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 05:06 PM   #83
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
the nerve of someone owning a second house
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 05:09 PM   #84
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
love you Wayne, but this is just....good grief...

Just saying if you support this tax bill or see it in a positive light endorse the estate tax repeal or changes in pass thru accounts or provision clearly attacking blue states . Amongst other things .. then yes the rich love you and say thanks
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 05:11 PM   #85
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Just saying if you support this tax bill or see it in a positive light endorse the estate tax repeal or changes in pass thru accounts or provision clearly attacking blue states . Amongst other things .. then yes the rich love you and say thanks
it was this part

"wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed "


between you and GOT hoping America somehow survives Trump...you guys might be better off in Canada with Spence
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 07:11 PM   #86
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I told you guys... property taxes are going to get you in the ass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 09:18 PM   #87
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 09:41 PM   #88
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,325
So lower the property taxes in Connecticut.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 10:02 PM   #89
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
When the fed gubment cuts back on money to the states and the states cut back on funding to towns, the towns will play the Shell game and use the tax apraisor to magically tell you that your 300k house is now worth 400k. Local governments will also look to any other way to suck you dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2017, 10:35 PM   #90
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
it's for the children...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com