Y2HH

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Great great post. I've never even heard of Sweetest Day, but if somebody is recognizing that day they deserve to get dumped. Valentines Day is fine cause millions of guys suck it up and play along on that day. I'd say in most cases your post is spot on and girls will dump guys that are too nice. I will say this, though, it's not ironclad. There are some girls that expected to be treated well. A guy I know has spent his whole life trying to keep his wife happy doing all the little things described above. Hey, you can never run out of fancy romantic vacations like the guy above supposedly ran out of. You can never run out of gifts, etc. It's complicated but I don't think you can generalize and say EVERY woman is the same. I'd think there are some that wouldn't dump the guy mentioned above, who pulled out all the stops for a year. I think the women he's dealing with are probably perfect 10 princesses. Princesses can be different. Generally though, I do agree, nice guys finish last with women. It's all physical anyway. If they think a guy is cute or hot and think their friends will think he's cute or hot, the guy generally is in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetest_Day Also, do note, some of what I'm saying is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, unfortunately, there is a truth to it a lot of guys would rather not admit.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) Are you a Comcast salesman or something? I realize every provider has their issues, but for ME, AT&T has been fine. There are two big reasons why I will not go back to Comcast: No full home DVR and piss-poor customer service. No, Comcast is a terribly run company...the only thing is their product is solid...it works, it's very fast, and tends to have very few outages. Comcast, for Internet, is an unfortunate recommendation I must make to everyone. When it comes to TV service...I don't see a difference in any of them, be they wired or dish, and aside from their introductory prices, they're mostly the exact same costs.

Also, if you're that nice ideal guy...you've probably heard this (or you will hear it) at some point in your life from the hot girl you've secretly been salivating over for years... Hot girl you've secretly been salivating over for years: "Gawd...my boyfriend is such an asshole...why can't I just end up with a nice guy like you?! Why do I always pick the wrong guy?!" You (feeling all compassionate): "We all make mistakes...but sometimes what we really want is right in front of us..." Hot girl you've secretly been salivating over for years: "You're totally right...OMG BBL, I'm going to go f*** my boyfriend now, thanks for listening to me...you're such a great listener!!!"

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) lol and we get the other end of the spectrum happy medium guys. Yes, but he has a point. It's somewhat of a cerebral game where the woman wants to feel like a sculptor... The problem with most guys is when you set the bar too high to start, that is to say you enter the relationship as "the ideal guy", there is nothing for you to strive to become in her mind. For a few months this will be amazing to her...there will be a sure spark between you and she will be nearly infatuated with how nice you are. That new car relationship smell wears off fast. Since you started off as that ideal guy, her image of the ideal guy will surely change when she grows bored of you...and trust me, she will. At that point, there is no where for you to go but down. She will see something someone else does that's romantic, something you wouldn't have done even though you were always doing romantic things for her...and this is how the conversation will go with her friend(s): Your soon to be Ex-GF: "Now you see, THAT'S what I want..." Your soon to be Ex-GF's friend: "But I thought you said your guy was always romantic like that?!" Your soon to be Ex-GF: "Well, he is...but not like THAT...he's a different kinda romantic...I don't know, it's not the same..." Your soon to be Ex-GF's friend: "Tell me about it...you should totally break up with him." Shortly after that conversation you'll be single and she'll be with a guy that's the exact opposite of you...a guy with a 'low bar', that she feels she can mold into her new ideal guy. And every time he does something unexpected...she will get a whiff of that 'new car relationship smell', and feel a sense of accomplishment. See the above: Going from wearing sweats to a nice pair of jeans... I'm not making up these rules, so don't shoot the messenger...I'm just deciphering the gospel of womanhood...

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) I've had them for my phone & internet for about 10 years now with no problems. Although we could probably drop our landline phone since we hardly ever use it. AT&T's internet is total garbage unless you happen to live very close to a central office. Even then, they can't come close to competing with Comcast in terms of speed. I have the cheapest Comcast internet package I could get, and it's like 20mbit down, 5mbit up. Not theoretical, but actual speeds sustained. And I find those speeds to be mediocre.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) I've had no problem with them. We've had wireless service through them for about 3 years now, and we've had U-Verse for about 4 years. Over the past 8 years or so, we've had Dish, Comcast, and now U-Verse. U-Verse has been the best, by far. I've compared prices for the package of TV, internet, and phone, and AT&T has the best price for what we need. As far as wireless, it's not cheap, but I wouldn't have saved much of anything had I switched to another carrier. There are always people that don't have issues...or so they think. Fact is, their wireless service is the worst in the nation, not by my opinion, but because it's the worst. AT&T is synonymous with low quality. A few of you having no problems when they have the lowest service ratings across all the industries you mentioned show that while it may work great for some, by and large, it doesn't for most.

Allow me to apply to golden rule when it comes to any technology when the name AT&T is somehow attached... If you can avoid using AT&T, avoid using AT&T. This rule *always* applies for everything and anything they offer. In the end, you will NOT save money, you will NOT have better service, and you will NOT have a better experience than you could have elsewhere.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) Back in April, the US House passed HR 4089. Purports to help support hunters, fishermen and shooters. In reality, if you read the bill, it completely guts the Wilderness Act. Ugh. Fortunately the Senate buried it in committee, but still, even the threat of something like that passing is enough to make me ill. And why the hell is recreational shooting, in wilderness areas, being championed anyway? Not hunting mind you - just shooting. Why would you want to do that specifically in a wilderness area? I have no idea...not only does this accomplish nothing, but it's dangerous because you have no idea what might be wandering around in the wilderness, be it animals or even people. Seems like a ignorant practice if you ask me. It's one thing if you're shooting at targets in a fenced off area of wilderness in a huge field, it's another if you're shooting into a forest for no reason. At least when it's hunting season, people are made aware of the hunting areas to remain clear of.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 08:24 AM) I don't know why I subject myself to them sometimes, but that's a good rule to follow in general. I'm not sure if there's a high troll ratio or just a bunch of horrible people. Given that those comments appear to be facebook-linked, I'm going with the latter. It's horrible people. Go look at almost any local story on Chicagotribune.com or Suntimes.com, and look at the comments section, it's nothing but astounding stupidity or racism.

Reading these comments above, it's no wonder you guys all are losing your girls...you're trying too damn hard to be likable and too busy trying to buy her affection like little boys. I'll give you my relationship advice cheat sheet... Let me begin by saying, women like nice...they just don't like too nice. Women like sweet, they just don't like too sweet...etc. Anything that you do that they like, there is a point in which they will say, "it's just too much"...and the second they say that, you've lost her. I know, I know...so how do you know when too much is too much? When she leaves you...you'll know it was too much. When it comes to these quirky romantic comedy moments/routines, take my word for it...slow it down. S L O W. D O W N. The idea is to set the bar low but do a few unexpected things from time to time, that takes these small unexpected moments and makes them massive galaxy sized moments in her minds eye. If you use up all of your romantic ammunition in the first year of the relationship, she's going to get bored, trust me. I have a friend that's famous for this...he pulls out all the stops every relationship he's in, does ALL the romantic things you can think of, from weekend getaways, to romantic B&B's, walks in the park, fancy vacations, etc...then, after a single year, he's done everything there is to do with the girl and she gets bored, or conversely, she feels smothered. Either way, it's the same outcome...she leaves. First and foremost, disavow holidays you can get away with disavowing...things like Sweetest Day, disparage it's existence so she knows how you feel early, and don't worry, she'll dismiss it as a 'man's man' thing if you're legit. Don't try to do this if you actually like lame holidays like Sweetest day, either, she'll see through your lie. Believe me, children, she wants you to be a man in her mind...not a boy. Boys follow girls like puppy's and shower them with items, affection, etc., men don't do this often, and while she'll enjoy it for a little while, she'll get bored. Don't attempt this with major holidays like Valentines Day until you hit expert level, either...and you'll know when you arrive at that level because you won't be here looking for relationship advice. Using this tactic requires you to celebrate her existence on a day that's NOT sweetest day and explain to her that you don't need Hallmark to tell you when you should show appreciation for your girl. Trust me...as lame as this sounds, she will love it, AND, she will henceforth allow you to ignore things like Sweetest Day...which leaves you an opening to surprise on a Sweetest Day at some point in the future, which she won't see coming. However much ammunition you think you have in the war chest of romance...you can empty it out quickly, which leads to boredom. The reason this happens is because you set the bar of expectations too high too fast...and run out of bullets. If you do this and lose her, trust me...when you do catch up and get an update on her, you'll find her with the guy I just described...which will be the exact guy she told you she'd never be with when you were busy showering her with affection like a puppy dog.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 2, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) You missed the part where George retired to Greece. He sold George's Gyro's to some people who recently had to close down and now it's for sale. Since its literally 5 houses away from me I went to the new business a few times and the food was terrible and the customer service was equally terrible. No small talk and the guy barely spoke english, when you're right there in front of the customers the whole time I think you should at least attempt to engage in some kinda small talk and not just stand there. When you're talking about "George's Gyros", are you talking about the place on Halsted in Bridgeport or is this some other George's?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 07:11 AM) edit: jesus christ some of the racism in the comments on that story I go out of my way to NOT read comments in local newspapers, national newspapers, etc...the comments sections are always full of the most ignorant idiots, that if you read them, you actually become dumber wondering how people these days could still think that way. :/

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) But if you only do it once or twice in your life, then you're only paying once or twice, and it's only on the amount over 1K. So if you buy one 5K engagement ring you pay tax one time on 4K of that, and if you have to buy a ring that costs a couple hundred bucks less to be able to afford the tax, you're still getting a very similar ring. But that's not what luxury is IMO. That could be a one time special circumstance for a person. Luxury to me isn't a 30,000 Jeep. It's a 125,000 Viper, it's a Porsche 911, etc... Luxury to me isn't a 1000 watch, it's a 5000$ Rolex.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) I have no idea on the merits of HH's proposal, but jewelry is the easiest example of a "luxury good" you can think of. Well, that much is true...it just bothers me that we're setting a number that low when inflation could make that 1k look like 100$ in a decade. I think it should be an aggregate amount of jewelry...not a one time purchase that happened to hit 1,000$. I have no problem with luxury taxes...but the numbers have to be set high enough that they are true luxury. 20k for a car when practially any new car costs 20k is too low. 200k for a house? I paid more than that for mine, and I have a rather small/modest house.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) The author of that piece is a tax lawyer and it jives with what I've turned up googling: https://www.google.com/search?q=step-up+bas...me&ie=UTF-8 The case of a spouse is a bit unique since they pay zero estate tax anyway, but let's assume the same situation but with a son or daughter. With the estate tax, the estate will pay up to 35% tax on all assets above the $5.1M exemption as valued at the time of death. When the estate satisfies its tax burden and the shares are transferred to the son or daughter, the new basis for those shares is the current value, not what was originally paid. So, for instance, if your father bought land in 1960 for $80,000 that was now worth $5,000,000, when you go to sell it, you would not be paying taxes on $4,920,000 in cg's. If there was no estate tax below $5M, those capital gains will go completely untaxed and your father could have borrowed against that $5M land as a source of income. Having no estate tax will foster generational wealth and an even-larger wealth disparity. I actually amended my post about this... The problem with this is they're sheltering...shelters the government created. So the government created the problem themselves by creating complex tax loopholes/shelters...and then to fix it, rather than removing such loopholes/shelters, they decide they're going to just add a death tax? I'd have less of a problem with them removing shelters/loopholes than instituting a death tax to fix a problem they created.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) How many people make jewelry purchases above $1k more than a handful of times in their lives? A lot? A 1k jewelry purchase isn't that much. You don't have to be anywhere near rich for this to be true. And even if it's just a few times...1k just seems too low. Now you're penalizing people that may want to do something extra special once or twice in their lives? Luxury to me in this regard would be over 5k, and for an engagement, over 10k.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Your heirs aren't being punished in any way. Money that was not theirs and that they did nothing to earn is being subject to a tax before it becomes theirs, and only on estates in the top 0.01% (currently, that will change to ~ top 1% if it drops down to $1M exemption). Estates of that size are often comprised of unrealized and untaxed gains that have their basis re-adjusted at the time of death. The inheritors can either borrow money against these unrealized gains (e.g. Zuckerberg) or they may be able to sell them gains-tax-free anyway, as Steve Jobs' wife was able to do: I don't believe that's how it works. Whatever price he initially received the shares at is his strike. His strike doesn't change for her...she would still owe money on the profits minus strike... Also, when it comes to things like this...this is why they need to simplify the tax code...so things like this wouldn't happen. I still don't agree with an estate/death tax on money that's already been taxed...but I also don't agree on sheltering it -- but you have to remember, the people taxing them CREATED these shelters. They should do away with them, and then they don't have to worry about this.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) OK, I am not anything close to an economist, but I've always wondered this and the post 2 posts above made me decide to bring it up: I know that a blanket Federal Sales Tax would be too regressive, but what about a Federal Luxury Sales Tax? Tax only certain items, and only above a certain amount. Something like: Tax all auto/boat purchases above $20,000 Tax all jewelry purchases over $1000 Tax all real estate purchases over $200,000 Tax all personal aircraft purchases. Rich people aren't going to stop buying that stuff just because it starts costing 10% more, and loopholes might be harder to find than in the income tax code. And the items above and the benchmark prices aren't set in stone, just suggestions to get the ball rolling. Oh, and on a completely unrelated note, stop printing $1 bills. That saves the government a ton of expense right there. All auto purchases above 20k? That's like every car on the planet. None of those numbers you listed could possibly be considered "luxury" other than the aircraft purchases. ...and i actually feel the federal Government SHOULD institute a small consumption tax, and when they do that, cap state/county/city aggregate sales taxes to a certain point combined with the federal tax. Like I told people before...almost nobody that lives in IL benefited from the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Any tax cuts we received on a federal level we lost on a local/state level. Every penny.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) It's an important point, imo, that undercuts arguments that the estate tax may be immoral or that it is a "death tax." My issue was with the way you framed your point and I think that framing reveals a flaw in the argument you were making. "You" don't lose any of your wealth via the estate tax because you are dead. Choosing to spend some of it now to decrease your estate's taxes for your future heirs benefits you and not them. There's a difference there and I think its worthwhile not to lose sight of it. Though you did concede that the estate tax encourages spending over wealth-hording. I was speaking more on it being unfair because you're family is essentially being punished because you happened to die, and worse, it's on money that you -- the person dying -- have already paid taxes on. Any "unrealized" gains are still at that point unrealized and on paper, when/if that paper is cashed in, they will pay taxes on those then realized gains. I'm not a fan of sin tax or death tax...and I never will be. Edit: I don't like the idea of the government double dipping, which is what this is. I'm not even talking about you paying income tax and then having to pay sales tax after that. This is taxed money being re-taxed because you died, because the government is allowed to draw and arbitrary line in the sand as to what they feel is "too much". It shouldn't matter how much it is, so long as they've already paid the taxes on it, IMO, at that point, the government is overstepping it's bounds and taking confiscating what doesn't belong to them.

...also, to further dismiss your silliness...unrealized gains will eventually be realized and therefore taxed. Let's not pretend they won't be...which you appear to be really good at doing (pretending).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) You lose every cent when you die regardless of what happens to your estate afterwards. The estate tax is a boon to charitable organizations and helps work against unearned wealth and aristocracy. I see nothing unfair about it, nor do I see it as "punishment." Much of the wealth subject to estate taxes is unrealized capital gains, anyway, meaning that it hasn't been taxed previously and may never be taxed if there's no estate tax. Troll post. We are talking about estates and inheritance here, so for you to even add this silliness to the conversation is, well...silly. Allow me to repeat: Since we're talking about estates/inheritance, I figured everyone here already understood that the person that earned it all died and "lost everything". The fact that they want to pass it down to their family, whom the lived and worked for, is the point of the conversation to begin with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) People as a whole might, but that doesn't say much about the top estates that get hit by the estate taxes that we're talking about. The people waiting in line for hours to save a couple hundred bucks on some electronics gadgets likely aren't the people to be heavily impacted by estate taxes in the first place. "Estate planning" isn't really a thing for most Americans. Tax Policy Center has some numbers: That's an estimated 52,500 estates out of the 2.4M Americans who die annually. Considering that the bottom 60% of Americans hold only 4.2% of the net wealth and that only 7,274 households had a net income exceeding $1M in 2007, the estate tax can't really be considered to have a broad impact on spending or savings habits. My problem with it is that it's still money that's already been taxed, it doesn't have to affect me personally to see how unfair that is. Taxing success is one thing...taxing success multiple times is another, and it becomes a form of punishment. Be successful...but don't be too successful...and if you are too successful, spend all of your money immediately or you'll lose a bunch of it because you happened to die. Believe me, those who inherit will spend it anyway...the saying 3 generations shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves exists for a reason.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) One-day sales numbers don't really tell you much. Black Friday sales don't correlate all that strongly with the economy as a whole. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-28/b...-and-irrelevant What it does show, is that people in a consumption based society spend money even during hard times, which they do. They don't need to be "feared" into spending money because if they die with too much the government will take it away.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) Nothing significant will happen until there is a big time propaganda campaign. If we can make people feel about climate change the way they once felt about nuclear holocaust, we'd suddenly have very clean industries. That is probably the most realistic suggestion I've ever heard on this matter. The biggest problem with that is doing so in a time of recession is next to impossible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) Actually, for the economy as a whole, encouraging spending of large inheritance sums rather than keepin them sequestered as assets almost certainly would e a good thing unless you're in an economy starved for investment capital, which we most certainly are not. There is no need to encourage spending in a society built upon consumption. Look at the recent black Friday results. Recession going on? Check. 59.1 billion dollars spent over the 4 day weekend by American consumers despite recession gong on? Check again. Spending was up 13% from the prior year. People are still spending money they don't have...we don't need to encourage what's basically native to American culture, from the Government on down. And that's spending money.