Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRyan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year
    Posted: May 03 2012 at 13:45
Yes, I did know that. It's technically $110,100 btw :P

Zero is deducted after that is incorrect...they still pay, just not the 6.2% of FICA that goes to SS.
If you earn $110,100 you pay 6.2% into SS or $6,826.20
Then it's capped there.
So at $250K you pay that $6,826.20 (2.73%)
So at $1 mill you pay that $6,826.20 (.68%)

It is regressive but saying they dont pay above that is a lie or a misunderstanding.

Here are my issues with removing the FICA cap:
Liberals always talk about those super wealthy...well removing the cap would hit the upper middle class as well.
$110K to $250K let's say. Seems a bit unfair to me, those are not elitists...and pay a lot of tax already.

The ONLY way I could ever support doing that is if we lowered the income taxes to balance things out, otherwise you're crushing the middle class.

Here's the thing SS benefits are skewed to benefit the lesser off, which is understandable, but higher earners already get a poor rate of return, and it even gets negative at one point. So raising taxes more just makes it worse.
Besides, the program is horribly inefficient...it yields poor returns for what we pay, and it's gunna get worse with time. If you want to call yourself "fair" then you have to realize SS is not.
This could be fixed but neither solution to doing so is gunna be popular.


btw I've been researching a lot of topics lately, SS is fresh in my mind so you couldn't have picked a better oneBig smile





Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 14:03
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 13:29
I'd rather see a parabolic income tax with a plateau at the top.  Also:

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 12:54
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:



I still believe Ryan Seacrast should pay more in taxes than my father.
Instead of trying to jack him up to maybe 50%  we should lower our taxes...



How about just getting rid of income tax?  It's only 99 years old.  Whatever did we do before then?  Shocked

Income taxation is counterproductive (especially since the US government wastes our money, and whether you call yourself a conservative or liberal, the government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff you don't think they should).



Well in the short run I don't see it as realistic, but eventually (once the federal government was widdled down enough) I'd be fine with removing the Federal income tax.

I've also opened up to a flat tax, which you know I thought was evil incarnate. We can't live in perfection world so I see a flat tax of like 10% as not that bad. By that point it'd be paying for things like the military, courts, the "basics" so it wouldn't be wasteful then.
Also it'd be truly fair because those cursed wealthy that "don't pay their fair share" are already paying for things that will never benefit them, or with SS they get poor to negative rates of return.

Which is totally "fair" isn't it? LOL If you pay more you should receive more, after all are these taxes (to pay for essential benefits) or just punishments?

Besides Rob, baby steps...not too long ago I was OK with tax wedges of 60% and all that jazz. You gotta admit I've come a wayWink



Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 12:55
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17447
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 11:12
^ Nice!!! You could buy 4-5 of them.....
 
I would buy this for each of my vacation homes
 
Back to Top
Vibrationbaby View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 10:39
If I had that kind of money I would buy a chunk of land and would clear a grass airstrip with a hangar and then buy one of these and fly it for the rest of my life.



Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17447
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 10:08

I really don't care what he makes, its been said already that he does much more than just American Idol TV show to earn his salary.

Lets hope that he also contributes money to worthy charitable causes.
 
My wife put it in perspective last night when I mentioned his salary.......she said, "but I don't think he has a life....."
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 06:41
Well, a thread on a Progressive Music site with Ryan Seacrest in the title has reached 7 pages.
 
Yep, end times a'comin'.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 06:33
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:



I still believe Ryan Seacrast should pay more in taxes than my father.
Instead of trying to jack him up to maybe 50%  we should lower our taxes...



How about just getting rid of income tax?  It's only 99 years old.  Whatever did we do before then?  Shocked

Income taxation is counterproductive (especially since the US government wastes our money, and whether you call yourself a conservative or liberal, the government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff you don't think they should).

Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 00:04
^You forgot baby killers, nuculear terrorists. 
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:54
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Socalism, class warfare, death panels, war on Christmas
 
j/k ;)
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:34
^Which in the end is what this thread and most forms of socialism come down to: ENVY, social resentment. 

And no Roy, I wasn't born a capitalist whore. I had a few years of believing marxist-leninist-maoist bullsh*t too. And just until less than two years ago I was still defending government control of many aspect of people's economic lifes. 


Edited by The T - May 02 2012 at 23:35
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:10

Too much for me there to comment on but in line with JJ's last post, I would be a lot less upset about incomes like Seacrest's if they were taxed more.



Edited by Textbook - May 02 2012 at 23:12
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:45
I don't really wanna get into that because I choose to live in reality.
We can debate Capitalism vs Communism till the animals come back to the farm, the fact is I argue for the situation we live in, not "what maybe could should be"

I still believe Ryan Seacrast should pay more in taxes than my father.
Instead of trying to jack him up to maybe 50%  we should lower our taxes...



Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:34
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


First, I would say I'm going back farther than the 20th century. Like it or not capitalism has been the greatest thing for "regular" people. This you can't deny, surely?

It's also not capitalism that's the problem...it's corporatism.
Some brief examples: Our banking system: There are laws restricting what they can do. Good right?
Well...Canada had a freer banking system and they have avoided the panics and bank runs that plague or system.

Our healthcare is insanely expensive and puts a drag on regular people, right? Yes, but there are laws that inhibit competition, and we can't buy from other countries. This is why senior sneak into Mexico and Canada, because they can't buy it here.

There are subsidies that make products more expensive than they should be, products we buy.
Programs we pay for, even if well intended, are plagued with issues and may not be necessary.

What about our current crisis? For decades all these successful companies were, well successful. Why did they suddenly become so crazy greedy and irresponsible? Well...the government encouraged them to make more loans even if people couldn't really afford it. Normally this would be risky, but thanks to history they were assured of a bailout, and they got it. You can see how this would lead to stupid ass risk?
In a free market they would be less inclined to be dumb, and if they did it anyway well, there'd be no bailout...funded by people like us.

If you don't wanna accept it that's fine, but what I'm saying is capitalism is not the problem, but government interfering with it...
Notice we never had another "New Deal" Think it could be the only time it was done turned an already bad depression into one that lasted 10+ years?

If you want communism, that's fine but realize we don't really have free markets, so that can't be blamed.





Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 21:36
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:26
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


In other words, you made up a pissing match between the Soviet Union and the USA.

I pick the USA.  Big smile


Disapprove

You know that's not what I said. But the myth that non-capitalism would make the world explode is belied by the fact that half the world was able to survive without it for decades, in strenuous circumstances. The Soviet Union had problems, but they aren't directly related to its being a non-capitalist country. The United States in a similar situation would be fallen apart far quicker. 

But I can see this is not going to be productive because it is a rather abstruse historical argument and we are dealing with simple statements (being on a web forum as we are).




Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:24
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

 That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.

I think this is false and probably could look up some science to prove that but I'm too lazy tonight.



We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. 

This is probably true.



I think this battle between top-down and bottom-up organization is a waste of time because no matter what we want, both processes will happen. We can make policies to try to make both processes work better, and if they are in line with current culture, that can help.

But current culture is the problem and that is very very difficult to purposely change. 
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:17
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


In other words, you made up a pissing match between the Soviet Union and the USA.

I pick the USA.  Big smile
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:15
Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:02
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system.

Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.


I used to be a socialist, and "social democrat" in the Scandinavian Model until quite recently, so trust me...I know every line by heart.

That's not the point. What I kept saying is you need to look at reality. How do you expect this to be done? You're right, it's not really possible in a capitalist society but what do you want, Socialism? That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.
Back to reality: Did you read what I said earlier?
We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. I realized that so many lefties (myself one) thought people were naturally greedy, selfish and want money...but then we want to redistribute it? Unless you find magic fairies the only way to do that is by having people...doing it.

This is why our tax code is a mess, we spend $1 trillion on welfare with few good results.
It's naturally ripe for abuse and waste. Besides the human factor, by having government do such things...people can then petition government to benefit them.
Like subsidies for businesses/sectors that drive the cost of everything up, hurting regular people like us.

So yeah, it's not philosophical, just realistic. Putting people in positions to redistribute is dumb, because people are selfish and self interested, and it leads to other people (generally more powerful than us) to petition those in power.





JJ gets some of these:

ClapClapClap


Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:02
As for families losing money, I know. Wanna hear a real gut puncher? We just fall inside the "upper middle class" bracket.

First, like anything uniform...this is flawed because we live in NJ which is expensive as hell. Both my parents work and we lived paycheck to paycheck for large stretches of time.
The reason is government actually. We're choked with taxes, the price of everything going up (which can be dealt with) subsidies and trade barriers that make things more expensive than they should be.
A lot of the things we pay for via taxes are wasteful (for reasons I stated in the last post) or just not necessary.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.128 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.