RE: Kicka, part 3

RE: Kicka, part 3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> Women Only

Message

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/6/2008 12:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels quote: What it's not meant to be...a place we come once a week, sing some songs that make us feel good, pledge our allegiance to our Savior and our church family and then walk out and live like the world the rest of the week. (Yes, I know of some churches like this. They scare me terribly.) I hope I in no way, shape, or form gave the impression that our church was like that. We don't have a lot of what we consider "frills," but we take worshipping God and the preaching and application of the word very seriously, and really believe in living what we learned throughout the week. Our church members hold each other very accountable. Oh no...that description didn't come from anything anyone has said here. Just things I've observed in churches over the years that I didn't care for. I should have also added it is not meant to be a place where sinners are pushed away because they don't come in already cleansed. Boy, have I seen that quite a bit. We're not better than anyone else.

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/6/2008 12:58:02 PM)
quote: "Life is meant to be lived as an increasing adventure in prosperity. God’s intention is to prosper the righteous so that they can demonstrate the power of His Kingdom on earth. Prosperity is not an option but a mandate and responsibility given to all who believe in the authority of the name of Jesus. We are called to show forth the wonders of His increasing Kingdom, and this clearly requires an increasing measure of affluence so that we can have an increasing measure of influence. " [:'(] Wow. [:'(] Some of the most influential people in the Kingdom have been the opposite of wealthy. And some who have fallen the hardest have been those with plenty of wealth. The key to this is to know what the Bible says about earthly riches. quote: "The message of the Bible is just as relevant today as it was to the world when it was first penned, but the challenge to the Church is to effectively communicate that message to those around us. Someone has stated that the message of the church should never change, but the method of declaring that message should always change. We must always be looking for contemporary ways in which to communicate the truth of God’s Word." This one I agree with. The Word is relevant in today's world, and the church does need to be relevant as well, while making sure the Truth is never sacrificed in the meantime. Nicole, because your husband is growing, I would focus on what the church is teaching that is right. And pray that God will open his eyes in His time. You don't need to be the Holy Spirit for your husband (boy, did it take me a long time to learn that...). Just pray for him, for God's truth to be revealed.

nicole6598 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/6/2008 6:52:11 PM)
Thanks Donna, that's what Ryanne said :) Another good friend of mine is also feeling something is wrong at the moment, and my best friend who led me to Jesus is also leaving AOG because of the health and wealth stuff constantly preached. Its hard to find things other than the people at my church that are right :) I guess its good that our pastor wants to spruce things up a bit but I guess because its all happening at once we are all freaking out that the money could be spent on other things at the moment...

lexie -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 7:11:45 AM)
Our church is entering a transition phase right now. We've always been small, having separated from a larger church, and now we're focusing on getting a permanent place for worship, so we can get out into the community. Up until now, the sole focus has been on those in the church, strengthening them in their faith. It's been hard because after separating from the larger church, we became a home church and we've been fighting that stigma. But now we're in a position to transition. Nicole - has anyone gone to the pastor with their concerns about the spending of the money? What was his response?

firefightermama -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 7:56:48 AM)
Our church is transitioning too. We just became a multi-site church. We joined with a smaller declining church in another part of the city, and in September will be officially multi-site. Right now, their congregation is joining ours until the changes are made at their site. It is a big change, and some people don't get it, but I'm really excited about it. The other church must be so excited to see all the changes, because it must have been so hard to watch your congregation dwindle away like that [&o] Anyway, we are spending a lot of money on the new site to transform it to have the same feel as our church, which means pulling out pews and putting in chairs, and a lot of technological changes, screens, lighting, sound equipment etc. Some people are getting nervous about the amount of money put into it, but I kind of agree, that if we're going to call it a campus of our own church, it really needs to have the same things going for it that the main site has. I'm on the Lead Team for our Worship Arts department (which gives leadership and accountability to the Worship Pastor and leaders) and there are definitely some challenges, but I'm so excited about this.

Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 8:16:25 AM)
How has your Monday been going, Nicole? You've gotten some good advice already, and considering my own predicament, I don't feel like I'm the best person to give advice on church going. [:(] If it's ok, I have another question. I've heard it said that a tax on cigarettes is like a tax on the poor, because it hurts them them the most. Do you agree with this? What do you think of other "sin taxes" as a way of raising money? I'm not looking for this to turn into a general anti-government, anti-taxes rant, because lets face it, short of anarchy we all need a government and government means some form of taxation. But specifically raising money by taxing items like cigarettes, alcohol and other luxury items? What do you think?

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 10:04:32 AM)
quote: If it's ok, I have another question. I've heard it said that a tax on cigarettes is like a tax on the poor, because it hurts them them the most. Do you agree with this? What do you think of other "sin taxes" as a way of raising money? I'll bite.[;)] Some background...my husband smokes. Has since he first stole his mom's cigarettes at the age of 9. By the time he was 11, she was buying them FOR him, so he wouldn't steal hers.[:@] He wants to quit, has tried at least 30 times to quit, and has not (yet) been successful. I honestly think it will take a miracle from God for him to be able to quit, the addiction is so deeply seated into his life and body. Yes, I think it is a tax on the poor. If there was a small additional tax on it, I would not have a problem. But NY state recently added a $1.25/pack tax on cigarettes, on top of already having one of the highest cigarette prices in the country (as most everything else...go NY[:@]). That's an extra $12.50 a carton. I may be slightly off, but it is close to 1/2 the price of cigarettes that goes to NY state now. Half. [:'(] We are below the federal government's determination of poverty level. I have heard people say...well, just quit. Only someone who has never seen the struggle of a smoker to quit would say that. And when you add the stress of high gas prices, high heating costs, and rising cost of food and everything else...that only makes it harder for a smoker to quit. Stress is not your friend when you are trying to get the nicotine out of your system.[&:] I really question our state government's motives in adding this new tax on top of the others.

29redballoons -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 10:11:05 AM)
Donna, I had a pack and a half a day habit...I quit with the patches...hardest thing I have ever done....but with the grace of God, I did it. I do not know if he has tried the patches, they are expensive. Our church helped out by getting some from the food pantry, but we had to buy some also...I just had to remember all I was going to save on cigarettes...and this was when cigs were only $2 a pack...can't imagine it now.

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 10:29:17 AM)
He's tried patches, pills, gum...you name it, he's tried it.[&o] We're working up to trying Chantix, the new med out. He's nervous about it though because Wellbutrin (the last pill he tried for it) gave him stomach troubles for months afterward.[:o]

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 10:46:47 AM)
I'm not a fan of excess tax in general(more of a flat rate kinda girl). Yes, it is a higher tax on the poor, but IMO, all it is doing is closing the gap between the tax brackets which is not a bad thing. Want to see unfair? HERE is the tax rate schedule for 2008. Micah and I are going to bump up a bracket this year, and my parents have gotton to the point where it's not worth my mom working because they lose more money on taxes then what she makes.

29redballoons -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 11:18:45 AM)
Donna, yeah, I tried the Wellbutrin...that was a waste of my time. Like I said, patches and those little DumDum suckers did it for me. I kept a sucker in my mouth and wore a patch for a month....lessening the size each week. Now, I also cried, shook, and literally felt like what I assume dt's would feel like. Praise God it was an awful fight. Psst, to this day (and it has been eight years), I still could smoke one about 3 feet long...it is a constant battle.

Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 12:05:34 PM)
Flat tax would be an incredible burden on the poor. I actually don't mind paying a higher percentage in taxes because we make more money. It's not about fairness; it's about driving a large percentage of our population over the precarious edge they're already teetering on. My husband pointed out that by its very nature, any consumption tax hurts the poor more then anyone else. A lot of folks favor a national sales tax to replace income tax, with a small rebate to replace replace the amount you would've paid in taxes for the bare minimum needed to survive. It's an interesting concept at least.

uponeagleswings -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 12:14:16 PM)
I think they just need to get rid of some of the loopholes that keep the VERY VERY rich from paying much of anything in taxes. The idea of a flat tax is interesting...if they did it in such a way that they closed as many loopholes as possible, I bet they could keep the actual percentage reasonably low because there would be fewer exemptions for wealthy people to take.

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 1:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sideways Flat tax would be an incredible burden on the poor. I actually don't mind paying a higher percentage in taxes because we make more money. It's not about fairness; it's about driving a large percentage of our population over the precarious edge they're already teetering on. My husband pointed out that by its very nature, any consumption tax hurts the poor more then anyone else. A lot of folks favor a national sales tax to replace income tax, with a small rebate to replace replace the amount you would've paid in taxes for the bare minimum needed to survive. It's an interesting concept at least. I see what you are saying. However, my issue is that it seems as if you gets "penalized" for earning a higher income. Many of these higher income jobs result from businesses that include bonuses or commission. Again, a choice that the employee makes. But, that tax rate is already around 48%. So, even if someone makes $100K now, essentially half of that is wiped from the slate if they are commission only. Or, if they make a small salary in addition, they have 2 tax rates. I do think everyone should help our country by paying taxes but I just think it is unfair to expect you that earns a higher income to be expected to carry the weight of the tax system because it is perceived that you can afford it. Everyone makes choices that affect income. There are those that learn ways to increase wealth through investments/knowledge/education. It just seems unfair to me if you put in the hard work that by the time the tax system "works its magic" you are living on so much less than what you really earned. Anyone making more $8k a year is already getting taxed at around 10%(flat) +15%(in the second bracket) of everything else so how would a flat tax of say 15%-20% be MORE of a burden? With a flat tax there would be even MORE of an incentive to seek education and better employment because you'll KNOW that you will actually see that increase in income.

Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 1:17:27 PM)
Yes, if someone is currently paying 10% of their income in taxes, then loosing an additional 10% could definitely drive them into homelessness or bankruptcy. A lot of folks here are on skin tight budgets as it is. A lot of this goes into "is long-term poverty a choice"? I think that's a very complicated question. We have folks here who are considered the "working poor". They have jobs, they work hard, and they are still two paychecks away from bankruptcy. Is a flat tax going to give them more incentive to just "go and get a better job"? I don't think it works that simply. I agree with you that it doesn't feel like it's fair. I would love to have more money in our bank account. I just don't believe what you're proposing would actually work.

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 1:26:46 PM)
What I'm saying is, they are ALREADY paying more then 10%. For a single person, they are taxed 10% flat when they make just $8,205 PLUS an additional 15% for everything over $8,205. At that point, a flat tax of 10% would be leaving them with MORE money. It's not just the "poor" either. There is a very large grey zone of people who ARE making 6 figures, but because of the way the tax system works they aren't able to afford some of the "creature comforts" or even things like private school. Yet they make to much to qualify for need based scholarships.

Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 1:33:30 PM)
I think I see what you're saying, and I can honestly say I don't know enough about economics to be able to mount an effective response to you. I can only say I'll try to learn more, and then come back to you.[;)] As far as earning six figures and not being able to afford private school and other things? Well, I can only look at my own life and say that we make below 100K and have a very comfortable life. We could afford private school if we wanted to and other creature comforts. I guess it all depends on how you manage your money. Now, when I was working full time and we didn't have Nathan we combined to make around 150K, and we definitely had a lot more disposable income then, but I don't feel overly burdened even now.

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 1:40:52 PM)
Well, I don't feel especially financially burdened now at only $35k either, LOL! But it is certainly not what we plan on earning for very long... Nope, I am to high maintenance for that[8D] My parents are a good example, I guess(I asked my mom's permission to use them as an example). My dad is earning about $110k a year. After taxes, retirement, and insurance he brings home $75k. They have about $5k in debt, so not much at all and they do have 4 kids still at home. But it's not enough for them to afford shelter, clothing(and they still mainly shop at consignment stores or on clearance), food, etc... PLUS private school, new cars, a boat on the lake, and vacations to tahiti. (ok, I was just joking about the last two) But they do live in an area with a relatively high COL. Should we give COL tax breaks too?

Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 2:26:10 PM)
You're basically saying that with your plan, everybody would get to pay fewer taxes, but the government would still get the tax money it needs? How does that compute? And your dad isn't quite paying the 48% you originally quoted. Even at 100K, there's tons of ways to lower your taxable income, kid credits, mortgage payments, child care expenses, medical expenses, 401K plans, educational IRAs, etc. Nobody who makes 100K is actually paying 48K in taxes, believe me. If 75K take home pay isn't enough to care for a family of six comfortably, then maybe they should consider making some changes, 'cause I know people who care for way more kids on far less. I'll admit not everyone sends 4 kids to expensive private schools, though.

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 2:33:28 PM)
No, and they aren't complaining either. Trust me, the took care of 6 kids on $32k a year at one point. They've certainly worked hard to get where they are and I think that is what frustrates alot of people who are making a larger salary.

Ps103 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 3:01:34 PM)
quote: Even at 100K, there's tons of ways to lower your taxable income, kid credits, mortgage payments, child care expenses, medical expenses, 401K plans, educational IRAs, etc. Nobody who makes 100K is actually paying 48K in taxes, believe me. And don't forget that handy tax-loss-carry-forward from stock losses...[;)] (We have enough to last forever.)

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 3:16:54 PM)
You've also got to remember that many (most?) of those working jobs that keep them stuck in lower class are doing some of the jobs that keep this country moving. Farmers, truck drivers, construction workers, menial laborers. Yes, I know people "choose" to go into those types of employment, but truthfully, some are not qualified for the higher-paying jobs. And somebody has to be willing to do the dirty work. Somebody has to pump out your septic if it gets backed up, somebody has to make and deliver the manholes for the road crews to put in, somebody takes care of your garbage, somebody pounds nails when your roof needs fixing, somebody fixes your fast food meal to order, somebody deals with 1,000 attitudes in a day as they ring up your groceries. Those somebodies have families too and should not have to pay so much in taxes that they cannot supply basic needs for their families. As for those making $100K not being able to afford private school...hogwash. You afford what is important to you. Bottom line. You sacrifice where you need to and you afford it if you want it badly enough. We are under the poverty level, as determined by the federal government, but we are not poor, as determined by us. But then, we also have God taking care of us...[;)]

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 3:33:09 PM)
I would guess that the majority of people in the first and second brackets are pretty much getting back everything they paid in... We have gotten back way more then we paid in when I consider the WIC and Pell grants. We actually won't be getting a refund in '09 though because we've upped our exemptions and minimized what we have deducted... which I would recommend almost everyone do if you need the money. We put ours in savings/investments so that it accrues interest throughout the year. Really, it's not just taxes that are the problem. Our entire government system of welfare, social security, and health care is broken. Free trade, etc... People don't understand the difference between cost, price, and value. Unfortunately because of the number of government regulations we have the market has been screwed in a lot of ways. It's created CEO's that earn more then they are worth and handymen who don't earn enough.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 3:48:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PrincessDonna As for those making $100K not being able to afford private school...hogwash. You afford what is important to you. Bottom line. You sacrifice where you need to and you afford it if you want it badly enough. I would think that depends on individual circumstances. Just because one makes x amount of money doesn't mean they can afford it because it's important. I know some people who make decent money, but can't afford it due to other circumstances.... usually health/medical related, even with good insurance.

PrincessDonna -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (7/7/2008 3:51:52 PM)
quote: Really, it's not just taxes that are the problem. Our entire government system of welfare, social security, and health care is broken. Free trade, etc... People don't understand the difference between cost, price, and value. Unfortunately because of the number of government regulations we have the market has been screwed in a lot of ways. It's created CEO's that earn more then they are worth and handymen who don't earn enough. I agree. quote: I would guess that the majority of people in the first and second brackets are pretty much getting back everything they paid in... I would also agree. I know we do. I also know that there are those who think we are "taking" money from them in the form of EIC, WIC, etc. What they forget is that SOMEBODY has to do the job Brian does, and he works his tail off at a physically dangerous job for not nearly enough money. But as someone else said, we are a couple paychecks away from being homeless and bankrupt. I am NOT complaining. I know it is some of our poor choices that have put us in this position. And also some of the things we have chosen that I don't consider poor choices, but others might, like having more children and staying home with them. I also know there will come a day when we are paying into the system (as we have in the past, before I was home with the kids). And I will not be complaining about those hard-working people that my taxes are helping to get by. Welfare for people who shouldn't have it is a whole different topic, IMO. I'm talking about people who WORK hard and barely make a liveable wage, especially with the prices of everything rising lately. These people are crunched and stressed in ways that the upper incomes will never be able to understand unless they have lived it.

Page: << < prev 65 66 [67] 68 69 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI