• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?


  • Total voters
    41
You are lying

if you have a tax rate of 30% that means you pay 30 dollars on every 100 you make after hitting that bracket

if your taxes go to 33% that means you pay 33 Dollars on ever 100 you make after that bracket

30 dollars to 33 dollars is MORE THAN A THREE PERCENT INCREASE IN YOUR TAXES

given dividend income taxes are more than doubling I will be paying far more than what you claim as well and almost everyone who is in the top bracket has income from dividends

you are the liar, not me.

and why should I pay a higher rate than you-I still would pay more in taxes and I certainly don't use as much as most of the low bracket payers. I don't use the emergency room for health care. I don't live in an area that constantly requires police attention. My family isn't engaged in criminal activity requiring the court system. My son goes to a private school even though I pay far more in property taxes than all but a few people in my city given I am one of the three largest individual landowners. I don't get any sort of welfare.

WRONG! Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You only pay the rate on the dollars earned within that bracket.

In other words: the tax rate for income up to $8,375 is 10%. So you - and the guy who only earns $8,375 is 10% on the first $8,375.

You make more than that. So, you pay on the money you earn between $8,375 and $34,000 a rate of 15%. Granted, he doesn't pay that, but that's because he doesn't make it. But you're not paying an additional 5% on your first $8,375. You paid 10% on that. (or whatever the current rate it).

And that continues all the way up.

If you think otherwise, then you have a terrible accountant.
 
Why is it those who don't make enough to be soaked continually claim that those of us who do don't understand our taxes

my rates next year will include 8% ohio income taxes. 39.6% federal income taxes. Sales taxes of 7% in my county. Property taxes-cannot tell (thank God I live on a farm or they would be 30,000 a year), gasoline taxes-my wife and I drive about 34K miles a year,

I am a competitive shooter so I pay the R-P excise tax on guns and ammunition, I also am a coach of archers and my entire family shoots on the national circuit so we pay lots of hotel taxes etc. The Robinson-Pittman tax is 11% and since shooting sports is my main use of discretionary income after my son's private schoool tuition, I am paying a ton of taxes most people don't. Of course I get soaked by SS "taxes" and those are going up as well.

next year I will keep less than half of every additional dollar I earn.

1) Because a) you don't understand taxes and b) don't assume all liberals don't make enough to soaked. My tax FED income tax (not including state and other taxes, as we discussed) bill last year was well into 6 figures. I also have a little more than a layman's understand of taxes as I once was a CPA. I also am not a hypocrite. I don't vote my specific individual interests. I could complain that I paid too much and others didn't pay enough.... but I honestly believe my situation was a blessing and others aren't so blessed and as commanded (Luke 12:48 .... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.) So you know where I am coming from, I believe taxes are a civic duty. That said, taxes should be fair (which the progressive system, IMHO is very fair) and tax monies should be used for good purposes.

The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and delivers very poor services for the taxes spent. I am far more interested in whining about the lack of a good, single payer national health insurance then whining about taxes. My complaint is we don't get much for our money.

Again, your taxes are not additive and you only pay sales tax on a small percentage of your income... it is no an 7% tax on your income. I could add up your numbers for you as well... but I doubt they top 36% all in. For one, as a professional shooter, I image you have your own business as either a pass through LLC, S-Corp or Schedule C. This allows you to pay for many personal things with pre-tax dollars (meals on the road, a laptop, cell phone) All of your hotel taxes, Robinson Pittman taxes are all deductible at 39.6% (at least... if you are self employed, they also deduct from your FICA taxes)... so you are only really paying 60% of the tax... so you have a great many advantages that a salaried guy will not have. If you level set all of your advantages to those of the average guy, I bet all in your effective tax rate is in the low 30s...
 
Last edited:
The poll question was worded in such a way that it is baited.

We have a legitimate need to get the budget deficit under control. Higher taxes on the rich is one of the things that is going to have to happen unless we seriously reduce our spending. At this particular time, reducing spending would put us into a double dip recession (depression).

I do object to the fact that the lowest tax bracket is going up more than the highest tax bracket though.
 
The poll question was worded in such a way that it is baited.

That's just Navy, I am not sure he cares about objectivity or honesty.
 
The poll question was worded in such a way that it is baited.

We have a legitimate need to get the budget deficit under control. Higher taxes on the rich is one of the things that is going to have to happen unless we seriously reduce our spending. At this particular time, reducing spending would put us into a double dip recession (depression).

I do object to the fact that the lowest tax bracket is going up more than the highest tax bracket though.



Wait, what?


:lamo
 
The OP might as well had asked: "Do you like people who kick puppies, kill babies, and want taxes to go up?"




uhm you must have come up with your own version of what I was asking....


At this particular time, reducing spending would put us into a double dip recession (depression).


Please to explain.
 
The end of the Bush tax cuts have been Obama's plan to raise taxes all along without technically raising them directly.
 
The upper class hasn't grown. In the decades following Reagan, the top 1% control more of the wealth in this country. That is exactly why the Reagan era saw the destruction of single income homes. It is now a reality that both parents have to work which is why the whole "family values" BS is such a joke. the GOP, Reagan in particular have done more to destroy the family unit than so called "liberals" ever will.




How is taking more money from people in the way of taxes going to bring back single income houses? /facepalm
 
The upper class hasn't grown. In the decades following Reagan, the top 1% control more of the wealth in this country. That is exactly why the Reagan era saw the destruction of single income homes. It is now a reality that both parents have to work which is why the whole "family values" BS is such a joke. the GOP, Reagan in particular have done more to destroy the family unit than so called "liberals" ever will.

Thats absolutly true. The right tends to idolize Reagan, but some of his economic policies were terrible. And I am a conservative!
 
WRONG! Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You only pay the rate on the dollars earned within that bracket.

In other words: the tax rate for income up to $8,375 is 10%. So you - and the guy who only earns $8,375 is 10% on the first $8,375.

You make more than that. So, you pay on the money you earn between $8,375 and $34,000 a rate of 15%. Granted, he doesn't pay that, but that's because he doesn't make it. But you're not paying an additional 5% on your first $8,375. You paid 10% on that. (or whatever the current rate it).

And that continues all the way up.

If you think otherwise, then you have a terrible accountant.

you missed the first line of my post-big surprise

I have a very good accountant that is consistent with the sort of money I make. But why should people get hosed if they don't have good accountants or trust documents? and yes, top 1% income tax payers are gonna pay more than 50% on each additional dollar they earn next year if they are in a state that has an income tax like NY or NJ or Ohio
 
Thats absolutly true. The right tends to idolize Reagan, but some of his economic policies were terrible. And I am a conservative!

I don't know too many conservatives who think the government ought to confiscate family wealth upon the death of a family member
 
How is taking more money from people in the way of taxes going to bring back single income houses? /facepalm

Taking money away from middle class families certainly won't do that, but making it easier and easier for the wealthy to get a larger and larger slice of the pie does make it more difficult on middle class families. At any one given point in time, there is only so much wealth, so wealth distributation is a zero sum game. When our society makes it easier for the already wealthy to obtain a larger percentage of our our wealth, by default the non-wealthy each get a smaller slice of that pie. While it is very true that our society has become richer over time, it is also true that the extremely rich have became disproportionately wealthier and that the middle class has not shared in the increased wealth at the same rate the wealthy have.

Elitest will point to statistics that show how our middle class has done very well since the late 1940's, and those figures may be entirely accurate, but that higher standard of living, the two cars in every driveway, the air conditioning, the meals out, the factory made clothing - all came at a price. The price of soaring household debt and the addition of second income per family.
 
Taking money away from middle class families certainly won't do that, but making it easier and easier for the wealthy to get a larger and larger slice of the pie does make it more difficult on middle class families. At any one given point in time, there is only so much wealth, so wealth distributation is a zero sum game. When our society makes it easier for the already wealthy to obtain a larger percentage of our our wealth, by default the non-wealthy each get a smaller slice of that pie. While it is very true that our society has become richer over time, it is also true that the extremely rich have became disproportionately wealthier and that the middle class has not shared in the increased wealth at the same rate the wealthy have.

Elitest will point to statistics that show how our middle class has done very well since the late 1940's, and those figures may be entirely accurate, but that higher standard of living, the two cars in every driveway, the air conditioning, the meals out, the factory made clothing - all came at a price. The price of soaring household debt and the addition of second income per family.


taking wealth from the wealth producers decreases the size of the pie.
 
I don't know too many conservatives who think the government ought to confiscate family wealth upon the death of a family member

I don't know too many elitest who think that either. Of course that is why elitest are elitest, they feel entitled to being "special".

Conservatives are supposed to believe in work and keeping what they earn and are supposed to despise the concept of entitlement. There is no logic to the fact that conservatives tend to feel entitled to wealth that they did not create or earn. Other than for the fact that conservatives are human, and they want to get whatever they can get in life. What they don't seem to understand is that anything you are given, whether it be welfare or a big arse inheritance, comes at the price of higher taxes. Personally, I would much perfer to keep every penny that I make when I am alive, and pay my taxes after I have no more need for worldly wealth.

Inheritance is no more deserved than welfare. As a matter of fact, it is a form of welfare for the elite. It is largely what makes the elite; elite.

Any conservative that feels entitled to someone elses wealth, is not truely at heart a conservative. They rationalize their desire to obtain wealth without working for it by the fact that other conservatives desire to obtain wealth that they did not earn - thus if it is accepted by their peers, it must be OK.
 
I don't know too many elitest who think that either. Of course that is why elitest are elitest, they feel entitled to being "special".

Conservatives are supposed to believe in work and keeping what they earn and are supposed to despise the concept of entitlement. There is no logic to the fact that conservatives tend to feel entitled to wealth that they did not create or earn. Other than for the fact that conservatives are human, and they want to get whatever they can get in life. What they don't seem to understand is that anything you are given, whether it be welfare or a big arse inheritance, comes at the price of higher taxes. Personally, I would much perfer to keep every penny that I make when I am alive, and pay my taxes after I have no more need for worldly wealth.

Inheritance is no more deserved than welfare. As a matter of fact, it is a form of welfare for the elite. It is largely what makes the elite; elite.

Any conservative that feels entitled to someone elses wealth, is not truely at heart a conservative. They rationalize their desire to obtain wealth without working for it by the fact that other conservatives desire to obtain wealth that they did not earn - thus if it is accepted by their peers, it must be OK.

1) real conservatives believe that if you earn money you are the ultimate decider of what is done with that money. Your scheme is contrary to that

2) real conservatives despise the government taking wealth from the private sector for social engineering-again you support that

3) real conservatives realize that concentrating wealth in the hands of say a million families sure beats concentrating it in the hands of a few hundred politicians

You appear to be someone who is mad that your parents were not nearly as industrious and frugal as mine
 
taking wealth from the wealth producers decreases the size of the pie.

If the rich are truely "wealth producers" then they will create more wealth. The size of the pie is not reduced unless wealth is destroyed. Transfering wealth from the rich to the middle class (in the form of taxing inheritance as a trade off for eleminating the tax on work) in no way destroys wealth. Lets say that wealth is a bunch of marbles laying on a table in five groups. If you move one marble from the largest group and put it in one of the smaller groups, then there are still the same number of marbles on the table, no wealth has been created or destroyed, it has only been rearranged.

Periodically reseting the distribution of wealth in a very organized and meaningful way by redistributing it equally after death in no way harms the creator of the wealth and allows others the opportunity to develop their own personal wealthy by keeping more of the income they work for. With the savings, they can then become capital providers, just like the guy that died. Businesses really don't care where they get the capital from, it could be $100 from a million different people or it could be $1,000,000 from one person, the business really doesnt care and any resulting new wealth creation would be just the same.

Don't make the assumption that obtaining an inheritance is in anyway an "accomplishment". An accomplishment would be if one worked hard and saved their money and started a new business or helped in some way to fund a new business or a business expansion and became wealthy for doing so. Those who become wealthy due to inheritance have not accomplished anything, they were mearly lucky.
 
1) real conservatives believe that if you earn money you are the ultimate decider of what is done with that money. Your scheme is contrary to that

No, real conservatives only feel entitled to what they earn, not to the wealth of others.

2) real conservatives despise the government taking wealth from the private sector for social engineering-again you support that

Then why do some conservatives support social engineering the wealthy class? They tend to believe that we should eleminate taxes on income that is the primary income source for the elite (capital gains taxes) and they try to rationalize it by claiming it will improve our economy. Same with inheritance, they want to remove the tax on inheritance to insure that their children remain in the elite wealthy with no effort or achievement on their own. I have to assume that conservatives who support "different strokes for different folks" are not "real conservatives" at all.

3) real conservatives realize that concentrating wealth in the hands of say a million families sure beats concentrating it in the hands of a few hundred politicians
You appear to be someone who is mad that your parents were not nearly as industrious and frugal as mine

If we are talking about the size of government, I want a smaller government just as much as the next guy (assuming that he is not an anarchist). In my ideal fantacy world, our government would be so small that it could be supported soley from inheritance tax, allowing people to keep every penny that they MAKE. I could really care less if you feel that you have been "cheated" out of money that someone else made. You have no more right to it than anyone else does because you did not make it. If you want to be rich, then fine, go for it. Who am I to stop you, but please to it on your own merit and without sucking off of someone else.

Real conservatives want an economic climate in which the masses have a realistic and fair opportunity to become wealthy by being industrious and frugle based on their own merit. Not just the select few who happened to pick the right parents. You appear to be someone who feels entitled to the wealth that your parents created, without having to be as industrious and frugal as your parents were.

It is highly difficult to achieve a significant net worth when the government is taking a portion of every dollar you earn. Every dollar the government takes from the middle class is a dollar that they use to save and invest and start businesses with or provide to businesses for the purpose of expansion. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. Every dollar that some rich brat is allowed to inherit is an dollar that some hard working working person has to pay in taxes. People who inherit large sums of wealth become a burdon on the working class.

When I go to work I should feel that I am working to create a better life for myself and my family, not to create a better life for others. If you are incapable or unwilling to support yourself by creating you own income, tough tootie. Thats your problem, but when I have to pay part of my hard earned income just so that some lowlife elitest heir can latch onto wealth that someone else created, I have a right to be pizzed off.
 
Last edited:
Turtledude, just to let you know where I am coming from, let me tell you a little about myself.

My parents were both teachers, so I was brought up in an environment where education was very important, and I was raised in an environment where food was always on the table, but it was never escargot or caviar. I went to a local jr. college for two years because they gave me a scholarship, I then joined the military largely for the college benefits, eventually returning to a state university to complete my degree, and when I graduated, I graduated with a modest amount of student loan debt and a lot of experience working full time jobs while attending college. Never did anyone other than myself (and the military) pay for any of my college living expenses or tuition. I then worked several years as a low level manager for a couple of very large corporations, during which time I managed to purchase a house (with the obligatory mortgage) and I saved a small amount of money. I used that money to start a business 21 years ago, and I have managed to be fairly self sufficient ever since.

At no time in my life was anything outside of a very typical middle class upbringing ever given to me. I now have a fairly decent income, nothing to brag about but it is in the low six figure range. I have the big house (4,000+ sf on 5 acres with a fishing pond, an ornamental koi pond, a large inground swimming pool, a weight room, a pool table, a couple of guest rooms, etc), several nice vehicles, and equity in the business that I started myself from virtually nothing. I am quite proud that everything I have done has been on my own. I would have it no other way.

I do envy those who are superior enough in intellect or physical attributes to have much more success than I have been, and I am in no way resentful of those people. But I do resent the fact that every April I have to write a big fat tax check to pay for not only the poor and lazy, but the rich and lazy also. I don't resent paying taxes, I pay all my bills, that's my obligation. Every hard working person SHOULD resent having to keep up the lazy-poor and members of the elite class who have acquired their status through pure luck, inheritance, corruption, or outright theft. Now if you don't fall into one of those categories, then I have no issue with you.
 
Last edited:
If the rich are truely "wealth producers" then they will create more wealth. The size of the pie is not reduced unless wealth is destroyed. Transfering wealth from the rich to the middle class (in the form of taxing inheritance as a trade off for eleminating the tax on work) in no way destroys wealth. Lets say that wealth is a bunch of marbles laying on a table in five groups. If you move one marble from the largest group and put it in one of the smaller groups, then there are still the same number of marbles on the table, no wealth has been created or destroyed, it has only been rearranged.

Periodically reseting the distribution of wealth in a very organized and meaningful way by redistributing it equally after death in no way harms the creator of the wealth and allows others the opportunity to develop their own personal wealthy by keeping more of the income they work for. With the savings, they can then become capital providers, just like the guy that died. Businesses really don't care where they get the capital from, it could be $100 from a million different people or it could be $1,000,000 from one person, the business really doesnt care and any resulting new wealth creation would be just the same.

Don't make the assumption that obtaining an inheritance is in anyway an "accomplishment". An accomplishment would be if one worked hard and saved their money and started a new business or helped in some way to fund a new business or a business expansion and became wealthy for doing so. Those who become wealthy due to inheritance have not accomplished anything, they were mearly lucky.

you labor under the delusion that estate taxes actually transfer stuff to the middle class? LOL-and you claim to be a conservative.

do you think top athletes or models have an advantage because they were born with talent Of course. I played on the junior tennis circuit and I am the same age as John McEnroe. I guarantee you there were at least 50 boys our age who practiced as hard as John did. I doubt you have ever heard of any of them. One boy had more talent-he had a mental breakdown and was institutionalized. his name was Schoenfeld (sp) from MIchigan. He had a flaw that wasn't his fault.

anyone who argues the government has the right to forcibly confiscate wealth for social engineering is no conservative no matter how you define it. I earn money, I pay tons of taxes on it and its my right to do what I want with it and if that means putting it up my nose drinking it down, spending it on lavish parties, or investing every cent I don't need for my son that's my business and a real conservative would support that.

you obviously don't know alot of rich people. Some are screw offs and playboys. Some use the wealth to be able to do stuff they couldn't do -like being a public defender with a law review position from Harvard rather than working for some big bucks wall street firm.

The headmaster at my prep school was top of his class at Williams and then harvard. He was the heir to a huge fortune. He worked at the school for 40 years not taking a dime in salary but rather using it to pay the tuition of poor kids who had merit but no money. he could do that because of his inheritance. Whine all you want-but his inheritance was used for far more good than a greedy bunch of dem politicians taking it to buy the votes of people who ooze envy and hate those who were "lucky"
 
Turtledude, just to let you know where I am coming from, let me tell you a little about myself.

My parents were both teachers, so I was brought up in an environment where education was very important, and I was raised in an environment where food was always on the table, but it was never escargot or caviar. I went to a local jr. college for two years because they gave me a scholarship, I then joined the military largely for the college benefits, eventually returning to a state university to complete my degree, and when I graduated, I graduated with a modest amount of student loan debt and a lot of experience working full time jobs while attending college. Never did anyone other than myself (and the military) pay for any of my college living expenses or tuition. I then worked several years as a low level manager for a couple of very large corporations, during which time I managed to purchase a house (with the obligatory mortgage) and I saved a small amount of money. I used that money to start a business 21 years ago, and I have managed to be fairly self sufficient ever since.

At no time in my life was anything outside of a very typical middle class upbringing ever given to me. I now have a fairly decent income, nothing to brag about but it is in the low six figure range. I have the big house (4,000+ sf on 5 acres with a fishing pond, an ornamental koi pond, a large inground swimming pool, a weight room, a pool table, a couple of guest rooms, etc), several nice vehicles, and equity in the business that I started myself from virtually nothing. I am quite proud that everything I have done has been on my own. I would have it no other way.

I do envy those who are superior enough in intellect or physical attributes to have much more success than I have been, and I am in no way resentful of those people. But I do resent the fact that every April I have to write a big fat tax check to pay for not only the poor and lazy, but the rich and lazy also. I don't resent paying taxes, I pay all my bills, that's my obligation. Every hard working person SHOULD resent having to keep up the lazy-poor and members of the elite class who have acquired their status through pure luck, inheritance, corruption, or outright theft. Now if you don't fall into one of those categories, then I have no issue with you.

my father was top of his class at the best prep school in New England and voted the student with the most promise by the masters. My mother was top of her class at a day school in town. Dad was sent to a local college for officer's training and then graduated near the top of his class at Yale. He also was all american in soccer. He was not eligible for Phi Beta Kappa since he had two years at another school but his last two years ranked him top 20 in his class. My mother was summa cum laude at an equally prestigious women's college-then the top of the "seven sisters". My brothers and I all were accepted into Yale but we each also applied to equivalent schools. I was accepted at Amherst (no family connections whatsoever), one brother was accepted into Harvard (he was a top athlete in a sport Ivies recruit for-he came to Yale because he was the #1 recruit while Harvard had the two boys in the USA ranked ahead of him) and my other brother was accepted into Columbia.

we all could have sat back and been screw offs assuming my dad, who was the golden gloves finalist, didn't beat the crap out of us-which he would have. So yeah, I grew up rich but we all achieved rather well
 
you labor under the delusion that estate taxes actually transfer stuff to the middle class? LOL-and you claim to be a conservative.

do you think top athletes or models have an advantage because they were born with talent Of course. I played on the junior tennis circuit and I am the same age as John McEnroe. I guarantee you there were at least 50 boys our age who practiced as hard as John did. I doubt you have ever heard of any of them. One boy had more talent-he had a mental breakdown and was institutionalized. his name was Schoenfeld (sp) from MIchigan. He had a flaw that wasn't his fault.

anyone who argues the government has the right to forcibly confiscate wealth for social engineering is no conservative no matter how you define it. I earn money, I pay tons of taxes on it and its my right to do what I want with it and if that means putting it up my nose drinking it down, spending it on lavish parties, or investing every cent I don't need for my son that's my business and a real conservative would support that.

you obviously don't know alot of rich people. Some are screw offs and playboys. Some use the wealth to be able to do stuff they couldn't do -like being a public defender with a law review position from Harvard rather than working for some big bucks wall street firm.

The headmaster at my prep school was top of his class at Williams and then harvard. He was the heir to a huge fortune. He worked at the school for 40 years not taking a dime in salary but rather using it to pay the tuition of poor kids who had merit but no money. he could do that because of his inheritance. Whine all you want-but his inheritance was used for far more good than a greedy bunch of dem politicians taking it to buy the votes of people who ooze envy and hate those who were "lucky"

I don't disagree with a lot of what you just said.

You obviously are missing how an inheritance tax could (and does) redistribute wealth. Every dollar that is taxed through our inheritance tax is a dollar that doesnt have to be taxed on income. If our government was small enough to operate just off of inheritance tax, we could all keep every dollar we made because income tax could be eleminated. Thus, by elemenating taxes that would otherwise have to pay, we have redistributed wealth, and in a manner that is far less harmful to our economic system than any other, and in a manner that does not seize income from those who earned it.

Your example about someone making $200,000/yr is not the type of person I am ranting about when I rant about the rich. Someone else suggested the type of person that I am ranting about. Her, the Kennedy clan, etc.
 
I don't disagree with a lot of what you just said.

You obviously are missing how an inheritance tax could (and does) redistribute wealth. Every dollar that is taxed through our inheritance tax is a dollar that doesnt have to be taxed on income. If our government was small enough to operate just off of inheritance tax, we could all keep every dollar we made because income tax could be eleminated. Thus, by elemenating taxes that would otherwise have to pay, we have redistributed wealth, and in a manner that is far less harmful to our economic system than any other, and in a manner that does not seize income from those who earned it.

Your example about someone making $200,000/yr is not the type of person I am ranting about when I rant about the rich. Someone else suggested the type of person that I am ranting about. Her, the Kennedy clan, etc.

any tax that only a few pay will be voted up so that others won't have to pay alternative taxes.

I don't like governments having the power to use the wealth of a few to buy the votes of the many. and in the long run, the many suffer when the few leave
 
my father was top of his class at the best prep school in New England and voted the student with the most promise by the masters. My mother was top of her class at a day school in town. Dad was sent to a local college for officer's training and then graduated near the top of his class at Yale. He also was all american in soccer. He was not eligible for Phi Beta Kappa since he had two years at another school but his last two years ranked him top 20 in his class. My mother was summa cum laude at an equally prestigious women's college-then the top of the "seven sisters". My brothers and I all were accepted into Yale but we each also applied to equivalent schools. I was accepted at Amherst (no family connections whatsoever), one brother was accepted into Harvard (he was a top athlete in a sport Ivies recruit for-he came to Yale because he was the #1 recruit while Harvard had the two boys in the USA ranked ahead of him) and my other brother was accepted into Columbia.

we all could have sat back and been screw offs assuming my dad, who was the golden gloves finalist, didn't beat the crap out of us-which he would have. So yeah, I grew up rich but we all achieved rather well

Nice story. At least it is nice to see that you have a sense of humour. My dad was a boxer in the Air Force so I can relate to that part.
 
Nice story. At least it is nice to see that you have a sense of humour. My dad was a boxer in the Air Force so I can relate to that part.

if you would care to agree to a 10,000 dollar donation to this forum for me to prove I am truthful I will be happy to supply Captain C with the necessary information.

If you aren't willing to do that, then you are a gutless liar as well as being envious
 
Back
Top Bottom