I agree that the town has largely dropped the ball on attracting more commercial business to offset the residential tax burden. I haven't followed it closely enough but what have towns like Westoborugh, Hopkinton (outside of EMC) and other surrounding communities done to attract business that we aren't doing? View Comment
@Gtowner, with your...interesting attempt at putting together a cogent thought you have just proven why this town needed to up the educational bar with a new high school. With the extra space there should be a seat for you in there. Get to it! View Comment
In some respect we knew taxes were going to increase. we NEEDED the new high school. A town without an important educational accreditation is not a town that families would want to live in and Grafton would have become a ghost town. except it would have been a ghost town with a lot of infrastructure already built up for the current and expected growth that those few whom remained (largely the people that voted down the high school) would have had to pick up the tax bill on to cover the taxes lost from the mass family exodus. So don't gripe about the school. But I, like everyone else, am VERY curious as to what the 'why the hell not' $.45 increase is going to be used for. Everyone that is curious simply email McInerney's office and see if we can't get some clarity on this. The economy is still in the tank so I think the BOS owes it to the taxpayers to give us some details. View Comment
Ryants: "1+1 = 2".
Maximus: "ryan, why do you keep saying that 1+1=6"
Maximus, please let me know what combination of words will drive home the point to you that the issue isn't the money or the stuff. I can handle 4.5 points over 250k. it ain't gonna break me. my problem is the sentiment. why is paying more at that income point 'my fair share'?
you know how when you elect to donate money to charity you typically get to actually choose what charity to donate to and like to know exactly how that money is going to be allocated? Well, in this instance the charity is forced on us and the recipients are complete unknowns. that's the poinit of the cartoon I saw, there will be no workable oversight on who gets the benefit. It will be the hardworker that just needs a break alongside the guy that will sit on his couch all day drinking a 12-pack and trying to figure out how to keep the govt aid flowing. and the tax rate proposed by Obama is MUCH higher than it was in the Clinton years. I explained why above
if you think that our welfare system isn't rife with people that want nothing more than to keep the checks and foodstamps coming in, and will have more children in order to up the amount, then you are living in a fantasy land. separate those from the earnest, hardworking types and I'll be more open to this conversation View Comment
@maximus and Barnstorm - you two have wholly missed the point. It ain't the 4% folks. I'll manage! I have 1 credit card and that is my corporate card. debit card for everything else. I've got months of cash put away for any emergency. you preach presenting facts but then you blaze away with complete and utter BS in order to try and propagate an opinion. it's crazy. It makes you sound like a moron which I don't think you are.
what part of anything I've said has come across as lower earning people should have to pay a higher percentage than myself? again, you're just making stuff up. It makes for a very silly discussion
And you two keep speaking of us simply going back to the Clinton tax rates when the economy is booming. Ok. That's great. Let's go back to the Clinton tax rates where the highest bracket in the 90's was 250,000. But, guess what? income has not kept up with cost of living increases. But I'm sure you know that. 250k back then is the equivalent of 400k now!! so if you want to compare apples to apples then the upper bracket should be 400k shouldn't it? why, you say? I'm pretty sure gas wasn't 3.50-4.00 a gallon back then. it was more like 1.30 wasn't it? use your heads people. pretty much every cost of living indicator (fuel, food, clothes, housing, etc.) has increased exponentially over the past couple decades but average income absolutely has not. yet you want the highest level income to remain the same for tax purposes? nice try.
and before you state the level of effort that someone puts in compared to myself for their income you better know what you are talking about, and you clearly do not.
I'll close this post with this observation. I saw a political cartoon today which had a disheveled man setting up a bedroom in the garage of someone's house. owner of the house is standing in front of the open garage holding a briefcase with a question mark above his head. caption on cartoon said "didn't you hear, Obama gave me a piece of your house. Now get back to work. I'm hungry". Socialism. good times... View Comment
@maximus - there's a disconnect here bud. I'm talking about 250k being the line of demarcation and you're talking about the ultra-rich. two different demographics. whatever problem you have with the '1%', I'm not the 1% and I'm not wealthy. unless you think that anyone that earns over 250k is rich or ultra-rich...
@barnstorm - it isn't the 4%, it's the sentiment. I'm not a trust-fund millionaire sitting on my yacht watching my gifted investments earn 10%. I'm a hardworking american that worked his way up from almost nothing and still needs to put thought into paying my bills, feeding my family, and making it through life. I resent the fact that I should be penalized for that. I am far from 'wealthy'. I do ok but only because I busted my friggin ass to get to this point. no handouts. no help, just me and my drive and motivation. Apparently that work ethic is now demonized. fantastic. View Comment
How about a flat tax there, maximus? you earn more, you pay more, but at the same rate as everyone else.
It's amazing that the idea of working hard to earn a comfortable living is demonized by the Obama administration. View Comment
excellent. so rather than contributing to the economy I should spend a good amount of time figuring out how to get my income just under $250,000 because apparently I should be taxed the same as a very wealthy person. good thoughts View Comment
you're right. I don't pay 39%.. Obama hasn't implemented it. that's what he's going to push through though.
And you're wrong yet again. Money, among other things, has brought me happiness in the form of security and comfort for my family. And I am a very generous person. However, like most people, I would like to be in control of my generosity, not have it forced upon me.
but now your position is that anyone that opposes Obama's socialist policy lacks a generous heart??!! you're funny. very cute View Comment
@robin, yes, but that's you. there are others that grew up with little money (myself) and chose not to live like that when we became adult. I scraped to make it to a manageable level of comfort, affordable for me and my family, and Obama is, in effect, saying 'not so fast overachiever, slow down there buddy. you see those people over there, they want some of your money to make ends meet and I'm going to take it from you and give it to them. don't work so hard next time pal!"
and you are wrong again. president obama IScalling people that make 250k a year 'millionaires' by the simple fact that he is lumping anyone above 250k into the same tax bracket, 39.5%. View Comment
There was no fact presented here. 20 straight months of job growth is not a fact. my 10 year old could tell you that. it's an amalgamation of data presented in a way to produce an intended result. it is nothing more than statistical gymnastics. to believe otherwise is to approach the height of naivete. View Comment
don't get used to 35%. get ready for 39.5% percent for those that earn over 250k and that's prob just for starters. and again, get off your high horse on romney's cap gains and div rate (15%). I'm pretty sure there are many democrats that pay that rate off of capital gains and divends, perhaps even yourself or your family members. Also realize that people that earn interest income paid full tax on the funds to secure the equity stakes to begin with. no so cut and dry there robin. And Obama ABSOLUTELY has money in offshore investments including china and the cayman islands. take a look at some of his own investments and you'll see that, among other places, those investments are based in countries such as China and in a private equity fund based in the Cayman Islands. he just doesn't have as much money as Romney out there but your beloved president plays the same games, as do most americans with pension funds and other forms of equity. View Comment
Yes, you clearly haven't followed my argument because you apparently think I was complaining that the middle class wasn't getting tax cuts??!! I am very well aware that they/you are. My problem is that I and many many others like myself whom have worked themselves to the bone to earn over 250k are going to get further penalized for it. Obama wants to level the playing field so that the lower earners start closing the gap in take-home pay with the higher earners without out any change in the work habits of either. The whole 'work more to earn more' logical method gets thrown out the window. it enables bad behavior. let me repeat - IT ENABLES BAD BEHAVIOR!! The people whom haven't achieved the higher income levels love the idea. the people whom have given their all and then some to make it to a certain level and have built their budget around that level are now being told 'too bad, so sad, the lower earners need some of your cash'. again, like I said, and see if you can follow this time - those below a certain pay level love Obama's socialist plan because they can take home more money without applying any extra effort, those above take home less than before without reducing their effort.. it's a simple statement.
And as far as I feel terrible about your cancer diagnosis and am glad your plan is working for you. But in my case and the case of many, many others it is still largely individual to the company you work for regardless of reform. I also live in Mass and now absolutely have the worst health plan I have ever had since I've been in the working world and that has been outside of whether or not the president was democratic or republican. I was with a company when Obama first came into office that offered a great health plan where the best PPO had low premiums and low out-of-pocket expenses, copays. etc. Now 3.5 years later I'm at another company with a similar plan as above yet the premiums are more than double and the out-of-pocket is as well. So no, Mass has not cornered the market on good health care. It's up to the employers to make it so.
As far as offshoring, Obama offshores his funds as well. Most people do when they have pensions, 401k, retirement accounts, blind trusts, etc. It is a very, very common American pratice. they just don't know it. so get off of your high horse there.
As one of my grad school stats professors told me 'Give me a number, any number, and I'll make it sing and dance in any direction I want it to go'. Stats are useless in the hands of bias. For every report stating 20 straight months of job growth I'll present you with a report showing the exact opposite. It all depends how you slice and dice the data and the results will entirely be dependent on the point you are trying to make.
I would be in favor of cutting out the ridiculous fat in government spending before I would start penalizing people for working hard. And btw, you show me a rich guy earning 250k that needs to be taxed more and I'll show you a guy with a family of five living in a 1000 sq. ft. apartment in Manhattan cutting coupons daily to make make ends meet. Is that the wealthy that you are referring to? View Comment
Germany's low unemployment rate can be attributed to a few things, not the least fo which is a focus on exporting (manufacturing jobs) to bolster the economy. they've focused on innovative to be competitive in the global market. which goes back to my original point that the Obama policies will stifle the creativity and innovation that is needed to bolster export revenue that the jobs that would be needed to support creating the products such as Germany has. so these policies will actually work against a large part of why Germany has been able to keep there rate low.
And I already pointed out that the ultra wealthy do not have the same challenges. The difference between those folks and myself is that I have to work to pay the bills. So apparently your platform is that those like myself should continue to work as hard as I always have for less money so that those that earn less can take home more simply because I should enjoy the challenge? View Comment
It's quite simple really. There are several issues, concerns, and views at play here but the largest deciding factor is drawn at the salary line. Those that earn up to a certain amount are delighted that Mr. Obama has retained the office. Those that make above a certain amount are less than pleased with last night's outcome. Socialism makes all the sense in the world when you are among those that see take-home pay trending up with the same level of effort as before, and makes no sense at all to those who see take-home pay trending down with the same level of effort as before. I am in the latter category. To be fair there are the ultra wealthy that have no big issue with paying more to help 'bolster/subsidize' the middle class. I am not the ultra wealthy. I am someone whom came from very humble means and busted my ass to put myself through college, work two and sometimes three jobs at a time during undergrad to help pay for room, board and books. paid my way through graduate school and regularly worked 80-100 hours a week between work and school for the chance of making a better life for myself and my family than I had growing up. I still rise at the crack of dawn and go to sleep late at night. I also work hard to spend a lot of time with my family, coach my kids' little league team, and give to charity. So my problem is that while I'm sitting here busting my ass on a daily basis to provide for my family I now have the privilege of being penalized for the effort and having my income reduced in order to make sure those that perhaps didn't work quite so hard can take home a larger paycheck for themselves. Now I do realize that there are those that also work many, many hours and don't make as much but let me tell you I absolutely did not have any advantages growing up and had to make my own success and others can as well.
What better way to stifle creativity, crush innovation, and force hardworking folks to rethink exactly how hard they should be working than to continue to implement Robin Hood economics. Good times...
Ryan View Comment