So you agree or you just don’t understand distinctions or don’t want to think that hard about it
In any event that was harder then it should’ve been knees
Interesting Read in The Atlantic
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
In any event that was harder then it should’ve been knees
I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes; I do mind politicians passing legislation that spends that money in incredibly wasteful ways.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
No, just because people in the 1% complain about the amount their taxed doesn't mean they actually pay their fair share. They have the means to avoid it. But keep crying for the poor 1%s who might not be able to afford their homes in Jackson Hole and Harvey Cedars lol
But do the Uber wealthy really complain about paying taxes? I don’t recall reading any articles or quotes from Bezos, Gayes, Buffet, hedge fund guys, etc. About complaining about paying taxes.
....or is that just a narrative that gets amplified by the MSM and politicians..... there are people on this site that complain, but I don’t think anyone on Pirates crew is in that 1/10 of 1%.
I would love to see a simplified and fair tax code, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of issue that those in leadership want to solve because it has the potential to piss off too much of a constituency and it would give them one less thing to complain about and justify their role in society.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Maybe they dont complain but they dont pay their fair share IMO. My compliant observation was of people on this board who paint themselves as being in the 1% who sing woah is me about how much they pay in taxes as if nobody else pays Uncle Sam.
There’s a difference between being in the 1% and the 1/10 of 1%. A big difference. You can be in that 1% category, live in New York and not be able to take advantage of those so-called loopholes.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Obviously, but if you're making 500k- a million a year you're very wealthy, and you should pay what you owe.
Agree, but those are two different issues. If you are a W-2 employee/family in that annual income range, you are paying the highest rate and don't have the luxury of those loopholes.
I read the first two, but it doesn't answer the original issue in that having a six month (or term) minimum for job promotions is a factor in job movement. Please point to the section of the article that says that.
Millennials Aren't Afraid To Change Jobs, And Here's Why
Though they may be called "job hoppers" in a derogatory way, the truth is that millennials aren't afraid to change jobs. Millennials take on roles they're typically overqualified for, which often makes the transition to a new employer easier.www.forbes.com
Millennials, Gen Z are job-hopping, but contrary to popular belief, maybe not enough
One in four workers will switch jobs in 2021, and many job hoppers are under 40. Labor economists say millennials, GenZ should seek new employment even more.www.cnbc.com
Millennials: The Job-Hopping Generation
Millennials are the most likely generation to switch jobs. One possible reason: They're the least engaged employees in the U.S.www.gallup.com
The Truth About Millennial Turnover
You’ve probably seen at least one article or social post about the Simon Sinek interview “Millennials in the Workplace.” The interview recorded in December 2...www.recruiting.com
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
So I agree with SHUSA on the not being able to be prompted higher than 2 levels. This was the case for a large German chemical company I worked 9 years for. You also were not guaranteed to get the salary the job should pay, because your increase was capped at around 10%. However, if you were German rules did not apply.
they are. its starting to be based ethnicity/color of skin. i have direct experience with this. maybe its anecdotal, but i think its a trend
theyre moving to get promoted/make more money. thats default. plus the point is that they are indeed jumping at a much higher rate.
Well that wasn't the initial claim that you made. You sited specifically that because companies didn't allow two job jumps or more than one promotion every six months that people were leaving. You can't assume that's by default.
People leave for multiple reasons.....and that's been historic. One factor that is very different today is that companies themselves don't have the same longevity due to shortened product life cycles, competition, leadership changes, and M&A. Very common for people to leave a company post acquisition because the culture and mission are different from what they signed up for.
Haven't the Koch brothers, Leon Cooperman and others complained about paying taxes in the past
It gets more tricky here. If you are a professional making money as being a doctor, engineer etc, you are paying your fair share. You are probably paying an effective rate in the 20's. But, if you make your money off stock and this actually goes more towards the Uber wealthy, they are being taxed at the Capital gains tax at 20% at most and with loopholes, they are paying, in many instances, a lower effective rate than someone making $100k.
So if I am that guy who is making $500k a year, I am pissed that the Uber wealthy get tax breaks that he can't get. There is a tax inequity in this country but we can't paint that big broad stroke. It is more complex than that.
Koch Brothers are not very public, so if you can find a comment about them complaining go ahead. My point is that it's rare or non-existent.
Agree on the second point.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
I see your point, but at the same time if I am making 500K a year I'm thankful I live better than 99.99999% of people on Earth. That's a cushy life I can provide for my family.
Capital gains should not be taxed at all, especially for lower income people. People should be encouraged to save and invest. I would be open to a tax on capital gains at only the highest levels.
But I think you are mixing up the issues. That $500 earner is paying the highest rate (fair share) and doesn't get any advantage of a loophole. So he gets labeled as "rich".
no i said because its easier to get promoted in general by going to a new job. which is true. and thats what is causing the big spike in turnover among that generation.
people leave M&A because either A) theyre laid off or B) recruiters are like vultures on linkedin tailing employees of those merging companies.all of a sudden your path to the top just doubled in competition. ive been through 5.
Last edited:
Timely story.
When people talk about the Rich paying their fair share...
Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank
Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.
A billionaire using a Roth IRA to invest in stuff the public doesn't have access to and turning that Roth IRA into $5 billion. Those gains will never be taxed.
damn must be good to be rich.Timely story.
When people talk about the Rich paying their fair share...
Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank
Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.www.propublica.org
A billionaire using a Roth IRA to invest in stuff the public doesn't have access to and turning that Roth IRA into $5 billion. Those gains will never be taxed.
Timely story.
When people talk about the Rich paying their fair share...
Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank
Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.
A billionaire using a Roth IRA to invest in stuff the public doesn't have access to and turning that Roth IRA into $5 billion. Those gains will never be taxed.
A Roth IRA was designed to not be taxed! Contributions are after tax only. I would call this person smart and lucky. Smart that he opened a Roth IRA, lucky that the stock he purchased for almost nothing hit it big (a huge risk on his part). The only thing that isn't so kosher is purchasing non-public shares.
Last edited:
Anyone under the age of 40 who doesn't have a Roth IRA is an absolute fool in my opinion. The easiest and smartest thing you can do for your future.
And really, why limit it to 40? Arbitrary on my end, but the younger you are the bigger the benefit.
Right. It was designed not to be taxed and they capped contributions low so it would be for normal people. Not millionaires to throw a few thousand dollars at speculative investments ordinary people do not have access to and when they hit, they can grow those earnings tax free.
If you read the article, you'll see that his 1999 income was well within the contribution limit. Like I said, the only thing I don't necessarily agree with is purchasing founders shares at dirt cheap prices. Everything should be public and above board.
Wait. I am confused. How does Peter Thiel even contribute to a Roth IRA? A Roth IRA income limit is capped right now at $139k. How does he get to contribute to it? I can't contribute to my Roth any longer. The article is not clear on this point. But that's ridiculous. This was made for middle class people to invest money and have it tax free for retirement.Timely story.
When people talk about the Rich paying their fair share...
Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank
Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.
A billionaire using a Roth IRA to invest in stuff the public doesn't have access to and turning that Roth IRA into $5 billion. Those gains will never be taxed.
It didn't say his income was under limit of $110,000. It stated that he contributed the limit of $2000 at the time. How did he get around the income limitation?
Low salary, large stock grants.
"Thiel’s income that year was $73,263, the IRS records show."
Stop....MOST guys making 500 are working their A off and can’t afford that crap
Because he made $73,000 in 1999. Read the article. He hasn't contributed since because he's been over the limit.
Damn. He earned only $73k even though he had a company as a venture capitalist? Lol. He certainly took advantage by keeping his income low that year and he was smart enough to do what he did. Crazy timing.
Well that's always been true. You can get the promotion that way by moving to a new company (with probably a bigger raise than you would get from your current employer), but you are also taking the risk of starting with a new company and having to prove yourself all over again, maybe going backwards a bit in benefits (PTO) that build over time, etc.
Sure people leave due to M&A because they are let go, but in terms of voluntary turnover, it's quite common to leave because it's not what you signed up for. Another thing that has always been the case, but there is a ton more M&A now (and more often) than there used to be.
yea but what does proving yourself mean if your current employer doesnt really care about growing you, promoting you, giving you compensation, etc? And dont be mistaken, companies do not care about the cog in the wheel.
First of all, you are generalizing about something that is unique to each company.
Second of all, I can share multiple experiences of companies that have institutionalized development processes that use tools like a 9-box program to rate/rank talent to make sure they are advancing high performance/highly promotable people. And they care about the "cog" because they want to retain and grow talent because it's more expensive to acquire it and deal with the costs of abnormal turnover. If you don't develop your own talent, chances are you have to overpay when you go out to the market.
I don't know how many times you have moved in your career, but maybe you have limited or a bad experience.
youre making same generalizations.
so you overpay on the market vs home grown talent. exactly the point. why the data supports millennial turnover for this reason. business is all about money. and companies hold on to this notion that employees are too scared leave their job and wont. so they implement precedents that clearly end up valuing an employee off the street vs a home grown employee. you just admitted it. theyd rather toe the line with current employees refusing to pay them at a market rate, because in the past it worked. not so much now. if a business cared about you they will show you the money. thats how they show they care.
ive had a long stay at one place, and short stint at others. its not about the company its about landing a good boss, which is probably rare. they have to care AND hold enough clout to get things done in a red tape environment. If youre boss has no sway, its a long slow road.
You’re totally missing the point. Do you have a reading comprehension problem. My point is that if you do not value your employees, they will leave and then you will have to overpay on the market. Not a good strategy.
And what are you talking about when you say paying at market rate? I’m assuming you took this job at a salary that you felt was commensurate with your abilities. Or what your market rate was. What changed?
Every one of your responses shows more and more of your naivety.
Most successful businesses are successful because they have talent. They attract talent, they keep talent and they pay talent. You may need to look in the mirror.
Every industry is different. Every “boss” is different. But bottom line is cream rises....or it’s supposed to in a capitalist society. In fairness to old millennials and gen x there’s a bit of clog with the b boomers.
