kallend 1,623 #1 February 24, 2015 It must be hard making ends meet, so clearly that special low tax rate for hedge fund managers is warranted. It's good that middle class taxpayers can pick up the slack. (NEWSER) – Chicago hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin and his money manager wife are embroiled in a contentious divorce, and the couple's battles over money had CNBC last month asking, "How can three kids under age 10 cost $1 million a month?" That after court papers indicated Anne Dias Griffin wanted that figure to raise the children. Now, a Friday court filing along with some previously filed papers detail just where some of the money goes each month. Per NBC News and the Chicago Tribune: $300,000 for travel on private jets, $160,000 for vacation rentals (the couple also own five homes), $6,800 on groceries, $7,200 on dining, $8,000 on gifts, and $2,000 on stationery.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 February 25, 2015 What the do with their money is an outrage! Nobody and I mean nobody should ever spend their money as they want. Rather, I will spend their money for them in a way that I say is best. How dare they stimulate the economy themselves by spending lots of money! The government could pay three times that much on meals and travel. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #3 February 25, 2015 Nice job intentionally missing the point. You're really getting the hang of the SC thing. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #4 February 25, 2015 lawrocket What the do with their money is an outrage! Sounds more like what she wants to do with his money."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #5 February 25, 2015 ryoder ***What the do with their money is an outrage! Sounds more like what she wants to do with his money.What is different from any other woman in her position?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 February 25, 2015 DanGNice job intentionally missing the point. You're really getting the hang of the SC thing. It's just satire. And as you know, nothing is just satire. Kallend seemed critical of people blowing large sums of people keeping people employed. I mean, rather than spending a couple grand a month on stationery, why not take that money in taxes and have the stationery company lay off someone? Put that laid off person on unemployment and we've got the American Dream right there. I have issues criticizing people for spending money who have it to spend. Keeping people employed. Right down to the people working A&P on the private jet. If kallend's point isn't that he government should be spending the money instead of them then I have misread the post. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #7 February 25, 2015 I was hoping there'd be a mention of "the lifestyle she became accustomed to during the marriage" or similar, so I could say "She can get accustomed to getting her own damned money". Alas, I can only say I don't want to raise taxes on the exceptionally rich, even if their spending might strike me as ludicrous.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 February 25, 2015 ryoder ***What the do with their money is an outrage! Sounds more like what she wants to do with his money.It's her money, too. And it's to maintain the kids and her on a roughly equal standard of living as during marriage. And he can afford it. My guess is she was doing the same things while he was making his billions. Edited to add that your wish is granted, Steve My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #9 February 25, 2015 lawrocketI mean, rather than spending a couple grand a month on stationery, why not take that money in taxes and have the stationery company lay off someone? Put that laid off person on unemployment and we've got the American Dream right there. Not sure how it's been playing out in other states, but since Michigan's unemployment reform, it has become exceedingly difficult for minimum wage employees to quality for unemployment benefits. Since the unemployment reform, I've noticed that companies in my community have been very adamant about keeping minimum wage employees under 30 hours a week. Initially I figured it was just to keep payroll costs down and reduce the amount the company had to pay into unemployment, but that didn't really make much sense since the company continued to hire more people to pick up the slack rather than giving their current employees a few more extra hours. After a bit of research, I've found that it's impossible for minimum wage employees to ever meet the income requirements to qualify for unemployment benefits in Michigan if they're scheduled for less than30 hours a week. If a company's employees can't qualify for unemployment benefits, it will ultimately reduce the amount the company has to contribute to unemployment each quarter. Now the problem isn't that these people can't qualify, the problem is that there is now a financial incentive for companies to restrict and limit the amount of hours given to minimum wage employees. Essentially, it seems we have an unemployment system that benefits very few people in comparison to the amount of minimum wage workers whose earning potential has now been limited. It's just very disturbing to me because an extra 5-10 hours a week could make all the difference in the world for most of these people.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #10 February 25, 2015 I believe Kallend's point is that hedge fund managers shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us. It's not that the government can spend their money more wisely, its that they don't need special tax rates to get by. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpjc2000 0 #11 February 25, 2015 At least he's a equal opportunity political funder… http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/one-time-obama-bundler-now-seeing-red/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #12 February 25, 2015 What special low tax rate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 February 25, 2015 DanGI believe Kallend's point is that hedge fund managers shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us. It's not that the government can spend their money more wisely, its that they don't need special tax rates to get by. As per usual, kallends so called point only deals with his own level of jelousy. They have more than him so it is a problem. A so called problem he would have the government deal with for him. Even if only to make him feel better. Do I know what he is thinking? No. But his history of posts like this are not rare on this sight."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #14 February 25, 2015 Do you think hedge fund managers should pay a lower income tax rate than everyone else? "Site" damn you, "site" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 February 25, 2015 DanG Do you think hedge fund managers should pay a lower income tax rate than everyone else? "Site" damn you, "site" Your question over simplifies what is thought to be an issue The questions implies they pay less than they should. Now, maybe I am missing something in this thread but I do not see how much they pay or at what rate So, are they paying a lower rate? To answer in general, they should pay what the law indicates they should pay No more, no less."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #16 February 25, 2015 waynefloridaWhat special low tax rate? Top tax rate for most people: 39.6% Special low rate for hedge fund managers: 20% YOU probably pay tax at a higher rate than these multi-billionaires.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #17 February 25, 2015 lawrocketWhat the do with their money is an outrage! Nobody and I mean nobody should ever spend their money as they want. Rather, I will spend their money for them in a way that I say is best. How dare they stimulate the economy themselves by spending lots of money! The government could pay three times that much on meals and travel. Other than buying off Congresspersons to get special treatment, I don't care what they do with their money. I just want them paying tax at the same rates that everyone else does.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 February 25, 2015 DanGDo you think hedge fund managers should pay a lower income tax rate than everyone else? "Site" damn you, "site" No. I think everyone should pay the rate of hedge fund managers. Not that the hedge fund managers should pay the oppressive rates of others. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #19 February 25, 2015 lawrocket***Do you think hedge fund managers should pay a lower income tax rate than everyone else? "Site" damn you, "site" No. I think everyone should pay the rate of hedge fund managers. Not that the hedge fund managers should pay the oppressive rates of others. Logical error there, counselor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #20 February 25, 2015 kallend ***What special low tax rate? Top tax rate for most people: 39.6% Special low rate for hedge fund managers: 20% YOU probably pay tax at a higher rate than these multi-billionaires. Well, some of his income is probably taxed at 39.6, some at capital gains 15%(?), and some at this hedge fund rate. As long as he obeys the law he is not cheating. Who cheated us are the democrats. They could have changed this 2009-2010 when they controlled everything.President Obama could also change this now by executive order. But no he is in the hedge funders' pockets.The evil Koch brothers probably pay at a higher tax rate.The good Buffet at a lower rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 February 25, 2015 But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #22 February 25, 2015 wayneflorida ******What special low tax rate? Top tax rate for most people: 39.6% Special low rate for hedge fund managers: 20% YOU probably pay tax at a higher rate than these multi-billionaires. Well, some of his income is probably taxed at 39.6, some at capital gains 15%(?), and some at this hedge fund rate. As long as he obeys the law he is not cheating. Who cheated us are the democrats. They could have changed this 2009-2010 when they controlled everything.President Obama could also change this now by executive order. But no he is in the hedge funders' pockets.The evil Koch brothers probably pay at a higher tax rate.The good Buffet at a lower rate.I didn't claim he is cheating. What I object to is the special treatment the Congress has given to the super rich. But we do have the best Congress that money can buy - no doubt about that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #23 February 25, 2015 lawrocketBut you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 February 25, 2015 kallend***But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. You are correct that enormous spending increases override any prospective benefit of increased revenues. Which is why Simpson-Bowles was roundly ignored by both parties - everybody would have to cut something. Of course, the only way to pay for these things is to take it from others. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #25 February 25, 2015 kallend***But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat TaxI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
