Trolls Among Us

[millerbleach]

A few comments directed at me to reply, so I will try to answer in order..

miller - regarding Obamacare adding to deficit, no Rep can make an argument to me about adding to the deficit after Trump's tax cut for the wealthy and it's estimated cost of $10 trillion over 10 yrs. While Ob'care is not perfect, it is a start and improvements can be made (which is what Trump did).
Term Limits- you blame liberals for blocking, well why didn't Reps do something when they controlled the House and Senate including Trump's first 2 yrs in office. Despite every poll showing the American people favoring term limits, the career politicians in Congress from BOTH parties won't move on term limits because they're ALL protecting their cushy jobs.
Wages - everything I read, wages (adjusted for inflation) have been stagnant for the average middle class worker for 20+yrs. I certainly don't have friends talking about getting big raises. In "real wealth" or what our dollars can buy, the middle class' wealth doesn't change much - most of us cannot afford a vacation to Cancun yearly.

I don't recall saying Obamacare added to the deficit but it does require government to provide (pay for) insurance for many/most on it.
Trumps tax cuts have raised revenues substantially. Somethings that cost don't cost. You can disagree but the tax cuts haven't cost us.

Term limits....I don't support them because good politicians are needed. The voting booth is to eliminate the bad ones (usually doesn't but that is how it's done).

Wages have risen faster than inflation under Trump and especially in the lower and middle income brackets. A vacation to Cancun is required for wages to have risen?

 

[millerbleach]

I have no problem with a flat tax IF the wealthy truly pay the same percent of their income as the blue collar workers. We all know they have loopholes and ways to hide money, and have smart accountants that know how to avoid taxes. I don't think the mega rich ever pay as much percentage wise as those of us under $75K per yr. Hell, Trump has 4 golf courses in the US that are declared "conservation areas" to avoid paying full taxes on them. The tax laws are volumes thick and full of advantages for the wealthy.

People who want to tax the rich seem to overlook the fact they themselves cite.....the rich have loopholes and don't pay taxes.
Trump eliminated the state tax write-off (loophole that happened to be a big benefit to him as a New Yorker) but was tarred and feathered for it. The "loopholes" are just deductions that people don't want to lose. I think a flat tax solves the problem but libs SCREAM unfair if mentioned. "Why should Warren Buffet pay the same rate as his secretary"? Giving the first 50K as tax free would solve that but it would open the door to exceptions to a truly flat tax.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Trumps tax cuts have raised revenues substantially. Somethings that cost don't cost. You can disagree but the tax cuts haven't cost us.

This is 100% not true, demonstrably not true, and if you really believe this you haven't bothered to look a single thing up about the budget in the last 3 years.

Further, it NEVER made sense that it would do anything other than cut revenue. You cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% without a material amount of corresponding revenue increases. Of course the net change was a decline. You're not going to see taxable corporate profits increase by 50%+ because you changed US tax law in this manner.

Federal revenue as a % of GDP in FY 2016: 17.6%. Forecast federal revenue as a % of GDP in 2020: 16.7%. The majority of this change is a decline in corporate income tax collections. Revenue is actually forecast to be up slightly from 2019 to 2020 due to tariffs.

 

[Neutron Monster]

People who want to tax the rich seem to overlook the fact they themselves cite.....the rich have loopholes and don't pay taxes.
Trump eliminated the state tax write-off (loophole that happened to be a big benefit to him as a New Yorker) but was tarred and feathered for it. The "loopholes" are just deductions that people don't want to lose. I think a flat tax solves the problem but libs SCREAM unfair if mentioned. "Why should Warren Buffet pay the same rate as his secretary"? Giving the first 50K as tax free would solve that but it would open the door to exceptions to a truly flat tax.

State/local change was a good change.

Trump changed his tax domicile to Florida and claims a ton of real estate exceptions that weren't affected by the tax law changes. Don't paint him as altruistic here. Those are an example of the sorts of tax laws that rich people know how to take advantage of.

 

[millerbleach]

Federal revenue as a % of GDP in FY 2016: 17.6%. Forecast federal revenue as a % of GDP in 2020: 16.7%. The majority of this change is a decline in corporate income tax collections. Revenue is actually forecast to be up slightly from 2019 to 2020 due to tariffs.

Saying it went down in relation to GDP is foolish because GDP went through the roof. The goal isn't to get a higher percentage but to get a higher TOTAL.....which we are even though rates were cut.

Post the total revenues received each year then you can make claims of accuracy.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Saying it went down in relation to GDP is foolish because GDP went through the roof. The goal isn't to get a higher percentage but to get a higher TOTAL.....which we are even though rates were cut.

Post the total revenues received each year then you can make claims of accuracy.

Exactly.

 

[millerbleach]

Exactly.

His post reminds me of the saying "liars figure and figures lie". You can say things lots of ways but I don't care how much I have to pay in taxes if i'm keeping more this year than last. The rate is irrelevant, it's the total that matters.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Corporate income tax receipts are down in nominal dollars, too. Go look it up!

It's a really lazy and stupid way to evaluate government revenue and spending (inflation, population change, and economic growth have to be accounted for), but it's even down on your poorly chosen basis.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Saying it went down in relation to GDP is foolish because GDP went through the roof. The goal isn't to get a higher percentage but to get a higher TOTAL.....which we are even though rates were cut.

Post the total revenues received each year then you can make claims of accuracy.

GDP went from going up at roughly 3.5% a year to something like 4% a year. Let's not overstate things

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

GDP went from going up at roughly 3.5% a year to something like 4% a year. Let's not overstate things

Corporate income tax receipts are down in nominal dollars, too. Go look it up!




I did and they are not:

2016: 401 billion
2017: 430 billion
2018: 450 billion

google taxfoundation.org

In fact a growing GDP is exactly how you can cut rates and raise revenues.

Is if better for the government to get 50% of a company that makes 1 billion in income or to get 40% of a company making 1.3 billion. Rising tide raises all boats.[/QUOTE]

 

[Neutron Monster]

Corporate income tax receipts are down in nominal dollars, too. Go look it up!




I did and they are not:

2016: 401 billion
2017: 430 billion
2018: 450 billion

google taxfoundation.org

In fact a growing GDP is exactly how you can cut rates and raise revenues.

Is if better for the government to get 50% of a company that makes 1 billion in income or to get 40% of a company making 1.3 billion. Rising tide raises all boats.

[/QUOTE]
You grabbed numbers that are wrong; corporate income tax collection was nowhere near 400 B in any of those years. It was ~300 B in 2016 and 2017, 205 B in 2018, and 230 B in 2019 per the OMB. Are you sure you're not mixing in other tax collections such as excise taxes that aren't corporate income taxes?

Again, a cut in the effective tax rate by 40% will never pay for itself at the level of marginal rates in effect in the US, which should be obvious if you have a brain. Corporate profits are heavily tied to GDP. GDP won't grow that fast due to a marginal tax rate change.

The economy is doing well. The US probably needed to lower its marginal corporate tax rate. It just should have done so in a more revenue neutral way by using the significant drop in the marginal rate to justify curtailing many of the exemptions and breaks that existed.

 

[SadButTrue]

You grabbed numbers that are wrong; corporate income tax collection was nowhere near 400 B in any of those years. It was ~300 B in 2016 and 2017, 205 B in 2018, and 230 B in 2019 per the OMB. Are you sure you're not mixing in other tax collections such as excise taxes that aren't corporate income taxes?

Again, a cut in the effective tax rate by 40% will never pay for itself at the level of marginal rates in effect in the US, which should be obvious if you have a brain. Corporate profits are heavily tied to GDP. GDP won't grow that fast due to a marginal tax rate change.

The economy is doing well. The US probably needed to lower its marginal corporate tax rate. It just should have done so in a more revenue neutral way by using the significant drop in the marginal rate to justify curtailing many of the exemptions and breaks that existed.[/QUOTE]

THIS is exactly the reason I'm glad you're back.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

You grabbed numbers that are wrong; corporate income tax collection was nowhere near 400 B in any of those years. It was ~300 B in 2016 and 2017, 205 B in 2018, and 230 B in 2019 per the OMB. Are you sure you're not mixing in other tax collections such as excise taxes that aren't corporate income taxes?

Again, a cut in the effective tax rate by 40% will never pay for itself at the level of marginal rates in effect in the US, which should be obvious if you have a brain. Corporate profits are heavily tied to GDP. GDP won't grow that fast due to a marginal tax rate change.

The economy is doing well. The US probably needed to lower its marginal corporate tax rate. It just should have done so in a more revenue neutral way by using the significant drop in the marginal rate to justify curtailing many of the exemptions and breaks that existed.[/QUOTE]

You didn’t go to the site. There are separate columns for excise taxes. 125 billion in 2018 for example. There is also a column for “other”.

They aren’t my numbers but they are right there on the site.

Forgot all those numbers for a moment anyway. My question still stands. Would you rather have 1/2 of income at a billion dollars or 40% of 1.3 billion?

It is my opinion that people would rather see it get stuck to the rich then support a policy that at least marginally benefits all.

 

[millerbleach]

Corporate income tax receipts are down in nominal dollars, too. Go look it up!

It's a really lazy and stupid way to evaluate government revenue and spending (inflation, population change, and economic growth have to be accounted for), but it's even down on your poorly chosen basis.

Without checking your numbers, my goal is to raise TOTAL revenue not corporate revenue. Lower rates have produced greater TOTAL revenues.
I say you are the one using a poorly chosen basis.
Why do you care that corporate tax revenues might be lower? The goal was to spur corporate activity which it clearly has.

 

[millerbleach]

It is my opinion that people would rather see it get stuck to the rich then support a policy that at least marginally benefits all.

Yeah, that is the only reason to show revenues the way he is. If actual revenue numbers are used the argument fails badly because they show the tax cuts did EXACTLY what they were intended to do.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You didn’t go to the site. There are separate columns for excise taxes. 125 billion in 2018 for example. There is also a column for “other”.

They aren’t my numbers but they are right there on the site.

Forgot all those numbers for a moment anyway. My question still stands. Would you rather have 1/2 of income at a billion dollars or 40% of 1.3 billion?

It is my opinion that people would rather see it get stuck to the rich then support a policy that at least marginally benefits all.

I went to the OMB, the Federal government. My numbers reflect what comes in as corporate income tax. Your numbers reflect something else.

Your question is a fake choice. Corporate profits won't rise 30% because you cut the tax rate by 10%. The effects on GDP of marginal tax rate changes at the level historically contemplated or enacted in the US are never such that a cut in personal or corporate income tax rates ever results in a revenue gain. We have loads of real examples of how changes in tax rates work in this country. They always work in this manner - you gain a little back, but nowhere near 100%

 

[Neutron Monster]

Without checking your numbers, my goal is to raise TOTAL revenue not corporate revenue. Lower rates have produced greater TOTAL revenues.
I say you are the one using a poorly chosen basis.
Why do you care that corporate tax revenues might be lower? The goal was to spur corporate activity which it clearly has.

Total revenue rises by a substantial amount every year due to headcount growth, inflation, and economic growth. The fact that total taxes go up in nominal dollars is not an interesting conclusion nor a remotely interesting way to evaluate a change in tax law.

To keep it simple, say taxes would go up 5% per year without any change in tax law (not a bad estimate based upon the US in recent years - note that spending will do something similar in nominal dollars.) By your logic, if taxes went up 1% in nominal terms instead of 5%, you could make some nonsense claim that revenue is up and the tax cut paid for itself. That's silly logic and a dumb way to evaluate a change in tax law.

It's fair to focus on ALL of the changes resulting from a change in tax law, such as people paying more capital gains taxes on the value of businesses that are now paying lower corp income taxes. But no reasonable analysis of a change in marginal corporate or personal tax rates will show that 100% of the revenue impact of a tax cut will be made up by taxation on other economic growth. It's closer to 20%-30%.

This is a really obvious conclusion if you think about it - why shouldn't we just cut the corporate rate to 1% or 5% if it is so powerful? The answer is, well, there's a point at which you can't grow fast enough to make up the revenue you're giving away. That point is well above the current level of marginal income tax rates in the US. Corporations were paying effective income tax rates of around 20% prior to the tax law change due to all of the deductions out there (total collections were never anywhere near 35%). It's not shocking that cutting this to closer to 13% wouldn't create a 50% increase in pretax profits.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Yeah, that is the only reason to show revenues the way he is. If actual revenue numbers are used the argument fails badly because they show the tax cuts did EXACTLY what they were intended to do.

A quick look at the budget deficit under Trump tells you all you need to know about the tax cuts paying for themselves. It's demonstrably false. Obviously false.

 

[millerbleach]

A quick look at the budget deficit under Trump tells you all you need to know about the tax cuts paying for themselves. It's demonstrably false. Obviously false.

The deficit is a combination of revenues and spending. I have never claimed Trump has cut spending.

 

[millerbleach]

Total revenue rises by a substantial amount every year due to headcount growth, inflation, and economic growth. The fact that total taxes go up in nominal dollars is not an interesting conclusion nor a remotely interesting way to evaluate a change in tax law.

To keep it simple, say taxes would go up 5% per year without any change in tax law (not a bad estimate based upon the US in recent years - note that spending will do something similar in nominal dollars.) By your logic, if taxes went up 1% in nominal terms instead of 5%, you could make some nonsense claim that revenue is up and the tax cut paid for itself. That's silly logic and a dumb way to evaluate a change in tax law.

It's fair to focus on ALL of the changes resulting from a change in tax law, such as people paying more capital gains taxes on the value of businesses that are now paying lower corp income taxes. But no reasonable analysis of a change in marginal corporate or personal tax rates will show that 100% of the revenue impact of a tax cut will be made up by taxation on other economic growth. It's closer to 20%-30%.

This is a really obvious conclusion if you think about it - why shouldn't we just cut the corporate rate to 1% or 5% if it is so powerful? The answer is, well, there's a point at which you can't grow fast enough to make up the revenue you're giving away. That point is well above the current level of marginal income tax rates in the US. Corporations were paying effective income tax rates of around 20% prior to the tax law change due to all of the deductions out there (total collections were never anywhere near 35%). It's not shocking that cutting this to closer to 13% wouldn't create a 50% increase in pretax profits.

First of all, the claims were (and are) that revenues would decrease because of the tax cuts......they haven't!
Secondly, You keep giving theoretical amounts! Did the revenue increases not equal what we were getting before the cuts? I'm not saying revenues just went up, they went up way more than enough to offset the lower rates. Even a small increase in GDP rates equals a HUGE amount of revenues and you know it. You oppose the tax cuts for philosophical reasons and that is why you are playing this shell game with revenue numbers instead of just showing year over year total revenue numbers.

 

[Arcola]

 

[kaskaskiakid]

The tax cuts will add $10 trillion to the national debt over 10 years but that's OK because it was King Orange Julius's idea and will save the wealthy millions. But by God we're going to take away some poor family's $120 per month in food stamps.

 

[millerbleach]

The tax cuts will add $10 trillion to the national debt over 10 years but that's OK because it was King Orange Julius's idea and will save the wealthy millions. But by God we're going to take away some poor family's $120 per month in food stamps.

That ten trillion figure assumes a static economy that has definitely not been the case.

 

[Neutron Monster]

That ten trillion figure assumes a static economy that has definitely not been the case.

It’s grown by a de minimis amount over what it would have grown without the tax cut. Going from 2 percent GDP growth to 2.3 percent or whatever doesn’t fund trillion dollar tax cuts.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

It’s grown by a de minimis amount over what it would have grown without the tax cut. Going from 2 percent GDP growth to 2.3 percent or whatever doesn’t fund trillion dollar tax cuts.

Its fun watching nm smacking the alternative facts with reality

 

[SadButTrue]

Its fun watching nm smacking the alternative facts with reality

Amen

 

[millerbleach]

It’s grown by a de minimis amount over what it would have grown without the tax cut. Going from 2 percent GDP growth to 2.3 percent or whatever doesn’t fund trillion dollar tax cuts.

Are you saying it is 10 trillion? I didn't say it was ALL made up already now did I?
What was the GDP growth rate Os last year?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Average in Obama’s second term was 2.2 percent real growth.

trump first 3 years is 2.5 percent real Growth.

economy is doing fine but it’s impossible to argue the tax cuts did anywhere near enough to pay for themselves.

Keep in mind govt spending has also increased in the trump years at a faster rate, so you’re also seeing some impact from that increase in the deficit as well.

 

[millerbleach]

Average in Obama’s second term was 2.2 percent real growth.

trump first 3 years is 2.5 percent real Growth.

economy is doing fine but it’s impossible to argue the tax cuts did anywhere near enough to pay for themselves.

Keep in mind govt spending has also increased in the trump years at a faster rate, so you’re also seeing some impact from that increase in the deficit as well.

The bottom line is, "costing" us 1T a year in tax cuts has RAISED total revenue.
I've given that spending is too high but the increased revenue and less dependency spending due to better economics shows the tax cuts have been a PLUS not a harm to our bottom line. Reduce spending now and we'll be on track but, Trump has never been a fiscal spending restraint guy. That is why saying he's taken us WAY right is silly.

 

[kaskaskiakid]

Raising the deficit is "costing" us. Not complicated math.

 

[millerbleach]

Raising the deficit is "costing" us. Not complicated math.

When have I said we aren't spending too much?
Increasing revenues don't cause deficits......not where math is concerned.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The bottom line is, "costing" us 1T a year in tax cuts has RAISED total revenue.
I've given that spending is too high but the increased revenue and less dependency spending due to better economics shows the tax cuts have been a PLUS not a harm to our bottom line. Reduce spending now and we'll be on track but, Trump has never been a fiscal spending restraint guy. That is why saying he's taken us WAY right is silly.

You can't give the White House that much credit for the year over year change in GDP, for one. A lot of what happens is out of their hands.

And by that logic we should just run deficits of 20% of GDP every year, since that will goose GDP in the short run. Why even collect taxes. Just spend! That will increase GDP even more! The answer is obvious - at some point you're going to wish you'd not been running a 5%-6% of GDP deficit during a time of economic growth. We'll be in a recession again at some point, and this limits our ability to use fiscal policy to mitigate its effect.

Given what is going on the world right now, it would be better for the US to have had 2.2% growth over the last 3 years and have a budget that was 2% of GDP more balanced.

Really, they ought to go explode the deficit for long dated treasuries right now given the borrowing cost is basically zero.

 

[MGHS]

As an independent;

1&2) Perhaps the one issue I agree with Trump on. But I've been saying since the '80's "What part of illegal is so hard to understand?" Reagan granted amnesty to 4 million (I think) and promised to close the border, but we forgot to close the door. Now I think our best bet is amnesty (with no criminal record) to the 14 million already here if they register (we are not going to round up 14 million people), and this time close the border. Building a wall is financially irresponsible in some of the desert areas and canyons in Texas. Instead, flood those areas with patrols and troops.(Why train troops in Fort Leanardwood (sp) MO? Train troops in the desert since we seem to do most of our fighting in Middle East deserts.) Additionally, more drones and electronic eyes can be used. A wall will not stop illegal entry alone, it will take boots on the ground.

3)Abortion - the one issue I struggle the most with, but I personally oppose it. I'm not going into all the underlying arguments both ways. At a minimum, it should be illegal after the first trimester. I do see it as between a woman and her God - I've been there and had no say . I don't base my vote on the abortion issue though.

4) Debt and deficit - we're all screwed. LOL I cannot even fathom how we pay off $21 trillion in debt. We spend too much on defense - isn't something like more than the next 7 developed countries combined? We spend $700 billion on defense and $70 billion on education. We need to stop being the world's police force, and if military force cannot be avoided, our allies must do their part. And I do believe we have a moral obligation to take care of our young, old, and disabled.

5) Obamacare, or better yet, Healthcare. Admittedly, I don't know much about the particulars of Obamacare, but it hasn't been the disaster that Reps predicted. I'm all for doing something!! I am tired of getting ripped off by an entire industry - insurance, deductibles, out of pocket expenses have gone up 52% since 2012, out of network, pharma, hospitals, tests, corporations deciding what procedures or drugs they will cover. I am willing to try a gov sponsored healthcare option and let people keep their private insurance if they want it. At least Dems are trying to do something. Trump promised a healthcare plan we were all going to love, but I haven't seen anything. Reps seem to be satisfied with the status quo.

6) Other - Environment I truly believe our period in the history of mankind will be remembered with shame for the way we have polluted our planet in the past 100 years. We are choosing profits, greed, and convenience over health of our planet.
Term Limits - power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Politics should not be a lifelong career.
Foreign policy - stop getting involved in foreign civil wars we cannot win. Cut off the foreign aid ATM, we have our own poor to take care of..
Legalize marijuana nationally and tax it.
Repeal Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy. Trickle down economics does not work. The wealthiest can afford to pay more in taxes and not effect their lifestyles one iota.

On 1&2 we are pretty close, although would try to remove as many illegals as possible.

3- On a personal note I don't like abortion because it's killing a child, but it's legal and I'm not a women so I stay out of that debate. If it was that important then something would of been done by now.

I disagree with you on 4...you always need the most powerful and most advanced Military, could we stop protecting Europe..and reallocated those funds? Sure I'd do that but I wouldn't slash the budget. 70 billion on Education is plenty, spending more doesn't help that has been proven,you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. And we already provide funds for the disabled,young and Old.

5 I work in the healthcare field and Obama care has spiked cost and Red tape and it will continue that upward trend at a faster rate. A full on Gov. controlled plan would cripple the private care as they Over charge Insurance co. to make up the Gov. shortfall in payment. Now I'd be for Separate facilities, Private Insurance ran companies that people went to with private Insurances and then everyone else to the cheap Gov. facilities.

6 well the environment is cleaner now than 40 years ago and even cleaner than the turn of the century when rivers and lakes caught on fire with all the industrial waste that was openly dumped into them. We can do better but the issue is Over population in third world countries and their drive to live a First world lifestyle can't be done without massive energy consumption.

I'm for term limits as well 12 years out to be enough for both the House and Senate...I know vote them out but it's not that easy as the Party controls so much and really there is never much opposition in primaries once one is elected.
I'd legalize MJ as well and really regulate it and tax the Crap out of it....
I hate cutting taxes on the wealthy I agree they can pay more and it doesn't effect their lifestyle, but let's be honest the rich are often cheap and conservative in spending, The Reagan Tax cut did work, and the Trump cut has as well. All the BS Left wing economist hate it and skew the effect they have, I've read most of them, but sadly it does spur investment and spending.

 

[MGHS]

Today it seems people's priorities are mixed up. one of my kids said I want to get a tattoo because they are 19 and old enough. I told them you do that you are on your own from here on out I will not pay a dime on college nothing and you will have to move out on your own. They said you just hate tatts and my want for self expression, I said no I hate it when people throw money away at irresponsible purchases and they cannot even afford to pay their own way. Sometimes in life you have to struggle to get the things you want. Your struggle is going to be you cannot get that tattoo until you can afford to move out and fully support yourself. That way you will see the true cost of spending $200 on a stupid purchase like that, versus maybe eating for the month. Not doing it while living under mom and dad's roof while we also pay for your schooling and having nothing invested in the true cost.

YESS!!!! WE need more parents like you. My EX-sandbagged all my efforts to parent like this, Said it would destroy my Girls Self-esteem,self worth and expression.

 

[MGHS]

My sister in law does my taxes, and for the first time in many, many years I am getting back about $600. I always have to pay in $100-200 between state and federal - single with no dependents gets screwed.

So Trump did you some good....

 

[MGHS]

The tax cuts will add $10 trillion to the national debt over 10 years but that's OK because it was King Orange Julius's idea and will save the wealthy millions. But by God we're going to take away some poor family's $120 per month in food stamps.

That's a scare tactic statement and you know that. No poor in American only the lazy and irresponsible. They suck off the taxpayer and produce no wealth or worth to society. But based on emotion the left seems to hate the rich those who provide Job's,philanthropic redistribution of their wealth, and the means or production that drive the economy.

All the while the left in a fit of co-dependency make hyperbolic statements about the mythical poor in American and their suffering so they can virtue signal that they care. The hate for the rich reeks of jealous and envy...

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

When have I said we aren't spending too much?
Increasing revenues don't cause deficits......not where math is concerned.

Yes. Our deficit problem is spending. Tax cuts are just letting people keep their own money. If you want to make the case Trump is overspending like just about everyone else in Washington then I’m right there with you.

 

[bullitpdq68]

YESS!!!! WE need more parents like you. My EX-sandbagged all my efforts to parent like this, Said it would destroy my Girls Self-esteem,self worth and expression.

I wanted new IROC when I turned 19 I was still living at home and going to college and working, So I went out and purchased it on my own I paid my own insurance everything I did on my own I thought I was doing the responsible thing. My dad said you can sell the car, or move out, your choice but you are not going to waste money like that, his exact words to me was that it was a "want" and not a "need". It was a huge argument between us. He told me if you believe you can "actually" afford a car like that and the insurance, then you need to be out on your own to figure why you can't and spending money like that is a waste. Well once you are on your own trying to make rent, eat and make a big car payment along with insurance I quickly realized what he meant by need and want, and that it was a waste. So I raise my kids the same way, I try to teach them when making a purchase or decisions, is it a want or a need, there is a difference. She wanted a tattoo, she didn't need it. I wanted an IROC, but I just needed a decent affordable car.

 

[MGHS]

My dad refused to really allow us to have a paying job while under his roof. We had to go to the farm and work....for Free,we received no allowance,all chores around house for free . We did work summers at the Ball Park keeping books,umpiring and grounds crew to earn some extra cash,which we spent on clothes or Name brand shoes. Because they where not buying any nice Levi's or Nikes for us...and we never earned enough to buy a car or pay insurance etc.

Later in Life I asked him why he wouldn't allow us to get a job after school. He said because you had to follow his rules and do what he said if we wanted to drive the spare car and get spending cash. Me and my Brother where totally dependent upon our parents.

Dad was a smart guy....in that regard.