It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 32  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
One Post talking some sense. Let's eliminate income tax altogether and go VAT!

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Standard taxation. I am only opposed in this thread to estate taxation. If I had to agree to that at all it would not exceed the max tax rate the deceased ever paid.


"Standard taxation" isn't a thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32234
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Hatchetman wrote:
One Post talking some sense. Let's eliminate income tax altogether and go VAT!


Well it makes sense to tax consumption over productive activities, but we have to use a mechanism to eliminate the severely regressive nature of sales taxes.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
I thought the issue was economic efficiency

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
denisdman wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
One Post talking some sense. Let's eliminate income tax altogether and go VAT!


Well it makes sense to tax consumption over productive activities, but we have to use a mechanism to eliminate the severely regressive nature of sales taxes.


#truth

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39693
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Standard taxation. I am only opposed in this thread to estate taxation. If I had to agree to that at all it would not exceed the max tax rate the deceased ever paid.


"Standard taxation" isn't a thing.


Then what are current income and sales taxes.

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Standard taxation. I am only opposed in this thread to estate taxation. If I had to agree to that at all it would not exceed the max tax rate the deceased ever paid.


"Standard taxation" isn't a thing.


Then what are current income and sales taxes.


"Income tax" and "sales tax"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Standard taxation. I am only opposed in this thread to estate taxation. If I had to agree to that at all it would not exceed the max tax rate the deceased ever paid.


"Standard taxation" isn't a thing.


Then what are current income and sales taxes.

Legalized theft


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32234
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Hatchetman wrote:
I thought the issue was economic efficiency


Yes, I explained my proposal earlier. Sales taxes are much easier to collect. The calculation of what is income and what are expenses is the reason why income taxes are such a difficult to thing enforce, especially when the system is built on self reporting.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?

Bake sale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?


Child #1 won't be able to live those 18 years on 6 million bucks? That's 333k a year, or roughly 480,000 a year with a 30% tax rate if the parent was alive making money.

I already said that it currently would be enough to do well on. It's more about the morality of the difference I mentioned and how fair it is.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?


Child #1 won't be able to live those 18 years on 6 million bucks? That's 333k a year, or roughly 480,000 a year with a 30% tax rate if the parent was alive making money.

I already said that it currently would be enough to do well on. It's more about the morality of the difference I mentioned and how fair it is.


No, you said that Child #1 wouldn't be supported financially because of the estate tax. I simply pointed out that Child #1 would be supported financially with at least 6 million dollars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?


Child #1 won't be able to live those 18 years on 6 million bucks? That's 333k a year, or roughly 480,000 a year with a 30% tax rate if the parent was alive making money.

I already said that it currently would be enough to do well on. It's more about the morality of the difference I mentioned and how fair it is.


No, you said that Child #1 wouldn't be supported financially because of the estate tax. I simply pointed out that Child #1 would be supported financially with at least 6 million dollars.

You know what I meant better than me I guess.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?


[/quote]

Not sure how this reads any other way than Child #2 is supported through the age of 18 because his dad lived, no estate tax, and Child #1 is not supported through the age of 18 because his dad died and the estate tax consumed what would have provided financial support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?

Exemption for people who die who still have children?

In reality, that's pretty much what we have now, but I'm more talking in the abstract. If a man who lives to 90 gets to control the money he has for 90 years why does a man who lives to 30 not get to do the same?

That is why I agree with denis that it is more fair to simply tax wealth accumulation better rather than the arbitrary idea that your family deserves the money less because you died.

Please read One Post.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
In reality, that's pretty much what we have now, but I'm more talking in the abstract. If a man who lives to 90 gets to control the money he has for 90 years why does a man who lives to 30 not get to do the same?


So your point is that it's unfair that some people live till 90 and other people only live till 30?

Hard to disagree with that.

I'd say that if you ranked the 50 most unfair things about that inequality, the estate tax wouldn't even be in the "receiving votes" category.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
In reality, that's pretty much what we have now, but I'm more talking in the abstract. If a man who lives to 90 gets to control the money he has for 90 years why does a man who lives to 30 not get to do the same?


So your point is that it's unfair that some people live till 90 and other people only live till 30?

Hard to disagree with that.

I'd say that if you ranked the 50 most unfair things about that inequality, the estate tax wouldn't even be in the "receiving votes" category.

Ok.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:17 pm 
pittmike wrote:
You following me?

You quoted me. Calm down.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:18 pm 
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Good to see Baby McCown is now a fiscal conservative.

Long time fiscal conservative thanks.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?

Exemption for people who die who still have children?

In reality, that's pretty much what we have now, but I'm more talking in the abstract. If a man who lives to 90 gets to control the money he has for 90 years why does a man who lives to 30 not get to do the same?

That is why I agree with denis that it is more fair to simply tax wealth accumulation better rather than the arbitrary idea that your family deserves the money less because you died.


Also, and exemption for people who die who still have children is "what we pretty much have now" is inaccurate.

The estate tax is an inclusive tax, so it impacts someone the same way regardless if they have children or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:23 pm 
pittmike wrote:
Bmac stands for nothing other than annoyance.

And monogamous relationships.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
One Post wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?

Exemption for people who die who still have children?

In reality, that's pretty much what we have now, but I'm more talking in the abstract. If a man who lives to 90 gets to control the money he has for 90 years why does a man who lives to 30 not get to do the same?

That is why I agree with denis that it is more fair to simply tax wealth accumulation better rather than the arbitrary idea that your family deserves the money less because you died.


Also, and exemption for people who die who still have children is "what we pretty much have now" is inaccurate.

The estate tax is an inclusive tax, so it impacts someone the same way regardless if they have children or not.

Ok.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39693
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post, why such a strong feeling about taxes?

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3832
pittmike wrote:
One Post, why such a strong feeling about taxes?


I think if you look at what I wrote in this thread I haven't really expressed a strong opinion or feeling, I've really just identified what I think are inaccuracies or less than precise comments.

Whatever you want to call it though, level of interest is probably heightened because I do tax work professionally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39693
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post, why such a strong feeling about taxes?


I think if you look at what I wrote in this thread I haven't really expressed a strong opinion or feeling, I've really just identified what I think are inaccuracies or less than precise comments.

Whatever you want to call it though, level of interest is probably heightened because I do tax work professionally.


Thanks.

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 13380
Location: The far western part of south east North Dakota
pizza_Place: Boboli
What color Yugo will you buy?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/millionaire- ... 53877.html

Quote:
Millionaire Trump Adviser Says Americans Can 'Buy A New Car' With $1,000 Tax Cut

President Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser — Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs president worth an estimated $266 million — appears to be completely clueless about what the average American family spends on a car, vacation or home improvement project.

Hours after falsely claiming that “the wealthy are not getting a tax cut” under Trump’s tax reform plan, Cohn appeared at a White House press briefing and spoke to what middle-class Americans have to look forward to. Based on the administration’s assumptions, he said, a typical family that has two children and earns $100,000 per year can expect annual tax savings of approximately $1,000.

“If we allow a family to keep another thousand dollars of their income, what does that mean?” he asked. “They can renovate their kitchen. They can buy a new car. They can take a family vacation. They can increase their lifestyle.”

The rather tone-deaf comment came in response to a question about how Trump — who could see savings of more than $125 million per year under his own plan — can claim the proposal doesn’t benefit him personally.

Dodging the question entirely, Cohn said: “I think what the American people are concerned about is their financial position. I think what they’re concerned about is when they go to work every week and they get their paycheck at the end of the week, how much do they get to keep? How much goes in their pocket versus how much goes to the government?”

“Our tax plan is aimed to return more income back to hard-working Americans,” he added.

In an interview on Thursday with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Cohn falsely claimed that Trump’s plan doesn’t offer a tax cut to the wealthy. He also said he “can’t guarantee” that certain middle-class families — the very people the Trump team says its plan aims to help — wouldn’t see their taxes increase.

“There’s an exception to every rule,” Cohn told George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t guarantee anything. You can always find a unique family somewhere.”

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I smell a bit....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68609
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
That's silly. He was obviously talking about making down-payments.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:30 am
Posts: 1497
pizza_Place: Bianchis
I was way ahead of him. Already put my $1000 down payment on this baby. Economy is a rollin'

Image

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88937
Location: To the left of my post
Terry's Peeps wrote:
That's silly. He was obviously talking about making down-payments.
Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck! Most Americans can't do anything important with an extra $1,000 a year!

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Terry's Peeps wrote:
That's silly. He was obviously talking about making down-payments.

buying a new car as a middle to lower class citizen is a fool's errand. It's a suckers bet.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 32  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group