Trump's a Petty Man

[raleighherdfan]

Assuming all other things equal, what would you rather have: a regular $100,000 salary or an untaxed $100,000 pension?

^^has nothing to do with the argument being made^^

Doesn’t matter whatever figure you want to throw out. A tax free figure is just that. 60k in tax free income is 60k in....income.

it wouldn't make sense to throw the $60,000 figure on top of that congressional salary, because it would then appear that the entire $235,000 would be a pre-tax figure.

It makes perfect sense. When talking about “salaries” or “incomes” most are comparing/referring to an overall income $ amount. Deciphering out taxable vs tax-free income amounts within the context of this discussion was pointless. It wasn’t even a factor in this conversation either until you felt it necessary to raise the net income amount on McCain’s public service income by grossing up an additional 30k (that never existed).

 

[Bankerreturns]

What Rifle is missing is that even if you take his bogus number, a person making $265,000 a year, or whatever, doesn't accumulate a $21MM net worth. Especially when you consider that amount reflects "end of career earnings" and is not reflective of average lifetime earnings.

In order to accumulate a $21MM net worth you would have to save $7,000 per month, every month, for 40 years at an annual rate of 8%. While $265,000 seems like a lot of money, let's look at it after tax (since rifle grossed it up pre tax). With that income level you would have somewhere around a 25% effective federal rate, a 5% state rate, plus social security and Medicare tax (don't know his local tax situation), so somewhere around 40% total, or around $100,000. So you net $165,000. So saving $7,000 a month would be 50% of your bring home pay.

While that may have been doable in his latter years, those are the ones that matter least as anyone who understands compounding can attest. Back in the 80s when his salary as a senator was well under $100,000 there's no way he,could have been putting $7,000 a month into growing his net worth. Remembering compounding again, $7,000 in 1988 grown at 8% till 2018 is worth over $60,000. So every month back in the late 80s and early 90s he didn't make that $7,000 monthly contribution would cost him $50-$60,000 off that $21MM total. What that means is if he didn't put in $7,000 in January 1988 he would have to make a $67,000 contribution in January 2018 to make his number.

Actually though, his net worth is easy to explain. Senators aren't subject to insider trading rules. Senators get large speaking fees from companies they can help with legislation. You know, what I was pointing out to start with. I believe it was Harry Truman who said that it is impossible to get rich being a public servant, if you're honest.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Doesn’t matter whatever figure you want to throw out. A tax free figure is just that. 60k in tax free income is 60k in....income.

Exactly. And when trying to make a comparison with somebody else's pre-tax income, it is illogical to not account for what that tax free figure would be as taxable income. If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.

When looking at pre-tax income, like Banker was doing, you don't mix in pre-tax income with tax free income. Then, you get stuck with a total and not know how much is taxable (if any) and how much isn't.

Again, this isn't rocket science. Even you can understand it. You're just trying to argue.

It makes perfect sense. When talking about “salaries” or “incomes” most are comparing/referring to an overall income $ amount. Deciphering out taxable vs tax-free income amounts within the context of this discussion was pointless. It wasn’t even a factor in this conversation either until you felt it necessary to raise the net income amount on McCain’s public service income by grossing up an additional 30k (that never existed).

No. Banker was trying to say that McCain had a low salary compared to his net worth. In doing so, he greatly under estimated McCain' salary by about 200%. You don't say "Oh, he had a $140,000 salary that was taxable, plus $60,000 that was untaxable, plus book and real estate earnings."

To make it easy, you estimate his $170,000 salary (not the incorrect earlier number), his $60,000 tax free income which would be about $90,000 pre-tax, and simply add those. The end figure would be the same, but you could simply say an income of about $265,000 instead going through each breakdown.

What Rifle is missing is that even if you take his bogus number, a person making $265,000 a year, or whatever, doesn't accumulate a $21MM net worth. Especially when you consider that amount reflects "end of career earnings" and is not reflective of average lifetime earnings.

What delusional fvcking world do you live in? My bogus number? You're the one who was off by 200%! God damn, you said his earnings were $140,000, when in reality, his tax return shows earnings of about $410,000. Yet you claim my number was bogus?

What you are missing is that his wife is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. McCain could have saved every single cent of his income and still led a wealthy life, easily getting his fortune to the estimate $21 million.

For both you and Liarherdfan, answer this:

If a person has a $265,000 income, what would his annual take home pay be?

If a person has a $170,000 income, plus a tax free $60,000 pension, what would his annual take home pay be?

As you both will have to admit, the figures are very close, which proves my point.

 

[raleighherdfan]

When looking at pre-tax income, like Banker was doing, you don't mix in pre-tax income with tax free income. Then, you get stuck with a total and not know how much is taxable (if any) and how much isn't.

Yes you do because it’s simply income. It’s not comparing apples and oranges within the context of this discussion. It’s tax status has nothing to do with the top line number of public service “salary” you and banker were throwing around. Again. It is simply income.

To further prove my point, you grossed up the tax free 60k to 90k but (intentionally) failed to net down (after tax) the other congressional salary in order to make McCain’s “salary” larger. Why? Because it would end up bolstering Bankers opinion that McCain’s Govt salary and benefits doesn’t fully equate to 21mil in net worth without some other type of profiteering off his “public service” status.

 

[19MU88]

Damn rifle roasted and mad!

 

[SamSwimmer]

I get not wanting Palin to speak, but not even inviting her is low rent.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Stuff about McCain and saving money

Did McCain even have to spend a cent of his own money after he married Cindy? Certainly not after 2000 when her father passed away.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

To further prove my point, you grossed up the tax free 60k to 90k but (intentionally) failed to net down (after tax) the other congressional salary in order to make McCain’s “salary” larger. Why? Because it would end up bolstering Bankers opinion that McCain’s Govt salary and benefits doesn’t fully equate to 21mil in net worth without some other type of profiteering off his “public service” status.

That's not what I did at all. I explained, using common sense, why I put everything on equal footing.

If he wanted to say "He made about $105,000/annually from his congressional salary post-tax," then I would have been fine using the $60,000 pension figure. But he didn't use a post-tax figure. He used a pre-tax figure. As a result, instead of having to say "He earned a $170,000 pre-tax salary and a $60,000 post-tax salary (or tax free, if you prefer)," you can simply say that he had earnings of about $265,000, which would then all be taxed, come out with the same number, and not have to explain every single difference between his earnings.

I keep saying it, but this isn't rocket science. It is common sense. That is why you keep avoiding my simple questions on this.

Compare person A who has a $100,000 salary (taxable) and person B who has a $100,000 pension (untaxable). Is it fair to say they both make the same amount of money? No. It's misleading. That's the entire fvcking point which you fail to acknowledge would be misleading to do with saying the $60,000 McCain figure is like his $170,000 salary.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Did McCain even have to spend a cent of his own money after he married Cindy? Certainly not after 2000 when her father passed away.

I guess that's a good side benefit of running out on your wheelchair bound first wife. F that whole "in sickness and in health" BS.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I guess that's a good side benefit of running out on your wheelchair bound first wife. F that whole "in sickness and in health" BS.

I know. Good thing we have a President who took his vows seriously.

 

[ThunderCat98]

While I find Trump's actions reprehensible, I do appreciate the delicious irony of McCain's own pettiness towards former friends and confidants associated with his failed presidential bid by making sure they weren't invited to his funeral. Further proof that no matter who or what you may have been in life, once you become involved in politics, you're likely to turn into a terrible human being.