I'm beginning to re-think my views on taxation.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Now an answer of my question please

the answer to your question is that if the super rich had paid their fair share of taxes then the rest of us wouldn't have had to bail them out with our own money.

Not the answer

And

they do and the we dont

You just want more because you are not smart enough to earn your own

So steal it

Next best thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,998]

>the answer to your question is that if the super rich had paid their fair
>share of taxes then the rest of us wouldn't have had to bail them out with
>our own money.

And if the middle class hadn't defaulted on their home loans by the millions, there wouldn't have been a need for a bailout to begin with.

[billvon 2,998]

>because you are not smart enough to earn your own

Enough.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

And if the middle class hadn't defaulted on their home loans by the millions, there wouldn't have been a need for a bailout to begin with.

and they defaulted because the super rich coveted and then accumulated their neighbours money. at the same time they haven't paid their fair share in taxes. next they want to launder their gains tax free to their non working children. result - the economic mess we're in.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

And if the middle class hadn't defaulted on their home loans by the millions, there wouldn't have been a need for a bailout to begin with.

and they defaulted because the super rich coveted and then accumulated their neighbours money. at the same time they haven't paid their fair share in taxes. next they want to launder their gains tax free to their non working children. result - the economic mess we're in.

"Fair share" is a meaningless concept. Taxes are designed to raise revenue with the least squealing from the constituency of the party in power.

Right now we have a huge deficit, clear evidence that overall, taxes are not high enough.

Those who think taxes are stealing need to read the Constitution AND comprehend it.

Those who think Bush's tax cuts raised revenues need to check their facts AFTER correcting for inflation.

Those who think the govt. can cut spending significantly without going after Medicare, SocSec and defense are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Those who think estate taxes amount to double taxation need to engage their brains.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

"Fair share" is a meaningless concept.

which implies that economics is a meaningless science.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,998]

>and they defaulted because the super rich coveted and then
>accumulated their neighbours money.

?? Uh, no, they defaulted because they got mortgages they couldn't afford. That caused a credit-market crash which took out the banks, which started this whole mess. Lesson - don't buy more than you can afford.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

"Fair share" is a meaningless concept.

which implies that economics is a meaningless science.

I don't believe economics is science at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>and they defaulted because the super rich coveted and then
>accumulated their neighbours money.

?? Uh, no, they defaulted because they got mortgages they couldn't afford. That caused a credit-market crash which took out the banks, which started this whole mess. Lesson - don't buy more than you can afford.

they defaulted because they hadn't enough money to pay the interest. now why didn't they have enough money?

(hint: the super rich have lots of money)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,998]

>I don't believe economics is science at all.

Well, it's the study of a complex system. Testable theories can be proposed and tested, although the challenge of isolating effects and outcomes from external influences is formidable indeed. It's also somewhat unique in that mere conclusions, whether supportable or not, can affect the system in either direction. It's a fascinating field of study overall, and business leaders who understand it can use that understanding to their great advantage.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>and they defaulted because the super rich coveted and then
>accumulated their neighbours money.

?? Uh, no, they defaulted because they got mortgages they couldn't afford. That caused a credit-market crash which took out the banks, which started this whole mess. Lesson - don't buy more than you can afford.

they defaulted because they hadn't enough money to pay the interest. now why didn't they have enough money?

(hint: the super rich have lots of money)

I doubt many of the posters here have ever met a member of the "super rich". A $Billion is indeed a LOT of money.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,998]

>they defaulted because they hadn't enough money to pay the
>interest. now why didn't they have enough money?

Because they chose a loan that took too much of that money.

I got a fixed rate mortgage 8 years ago on my house. I didn't default. Neither did most of my friends, despite them ranging greatly in income. The common thread? They all chose houses that were within their means.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Fair share" is a meaningless concept.

which implies that economics is a meaningless science.

I don't believe economics is science at all.

the current 'beancounter' economics isn't science. however there is a 'real' economic science and the concept of 'fairness' is a real economic force.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I don't believe economics is science at all.

Well, it's the study of a complex system. Testable theories can be proposed and tested, although the challenge of isolating effects and outcomes from external influences is formidable indeed. It's also somewhat unique in that mere conclusions, whether supportable or not, can affect the system in either direction. It's a fascinating field of study overall, and business leaders who understand it can use that understanding to their great advantage.

No disputing that. My billionaire acquaintance made his money by employing a lot of math and physics PhDs to study the derivatives markets.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

but you keep saying you want us to pay more taxes than the super rich - so you obviously want our stuff/money to do that...

I've shown above where we don't by quite a long chalk - have you always had this problem with the truth or is it a recent thing?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>they defaulted because they hadn't enough money to pay the
>interest. now why didn't they have enough money?

Because they chose a loan that took too much of that money.

so suddenly a whole generation of mortgagers 'chose' to take on loans that they couldn't afford?

(meanwhile the super rich scooped up all those lovely mortgages, packaged them, inflated their price and sold them to each other over and over again. and then remember that the banks froze before people started to default - why was that?)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Those who think Bush's tax cuts raised revenues need to check their facts AFTER correcting for inflation.

Speaking of checking facts:

Constant 1990 $, year-on-year
2003: +1.08%
2004: +6.92
2005: +4.77%
2006: +2.92%
2007: +1.97%

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andrewwhyte 1]

A value added tax on absolutely everything is the way to go. Everyone pays. If people feel that the poor cannot make it they can be subsidised by direct means, but the blanket VAT causes the least distortion to the economy and ensures no-one escapes.

[billvon 2,998]

>so suddenly a whole generation of mortgagers 'chose' to take on
>loans that they couldn't afford?

Well, no; it wasn't a "whole generation"; even during the worst of the crisis only 12% of homes with mortgages ended up under water. That was enough, however, to start the slide into a recession.

It was a gradual process. Here's how it happened:

Homeowners note that home sales are soaring and home values are climbing. Their house is now worth more! And mortgage rates are low! Years before that owner would never have considered that new $750,000 home, but if you combine a low rate adjustable rate mortgage and increased equity in their current home it becomes just _barely_ possible. And, they think, this is a great investment! With home values skyrocketing, that $750,000 house will be worth $1.5 million in 5 years. So if they can't pay their mortgage, they'll just sell and pocket a cool 3/4 of a million dollars.

So they do it, using a mortgage they can just barely afford.

But then mortgage rates go up. Their monthly bill goes up. Now they can't afford the mortgage payments. So they think about selling - but now their home is worth only $600,000 because few people can afford the higher mortgage rates, so no one's buying. They'd have to come up with $150,000 to even be able to afford to sell their home, and then they'd be left with nothing.

So they stop paying their mortgage. Mortgage companies then raise the rates on the remaining mortgages to cover the difference. More homeowners stop paying mortgages. The loan market collapses, and the economy follows.

If every single person that bought a house they couldn't afford had gotten a fixed rate mortgage that they _could_ afford, then the lending crisis would not have occurred.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A value added tax on absolutely everything is the way to go. Everyone pays. If people feel that the poor cannot make it they can be subsidised by direct means, but the blanket VAT causes the least distortion to the economy and ensures no-one escapes.

If in the PLACE OF the current tax, I would consider it. If in addition to the current tax, then no.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The loan market collapses, and the economy follows.

the banks froze first - nothing to do with people defaulting. the defaulting is happening now that the economy is in meltdown.

(explanation - the super rich found that the mortgages they'd oversold and then packaged and sold to each other had reached their maximum value. nobody wanted anymore, in fact were getting suspicious as to their real 'value', so the super rich had to dump them)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,998]

>the banks froze first - nothing to do with people defaulting.

?? No, the banks like making money, which they were doing until people started defaulting. A good statement on this from the G20:

"During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence."

>the defaulting is happening now that the economy is in meltdown.

Defaulting preceded economic slowdown. Check out the graphs.

>so the super rich had to dump them

The "super rich" can't dump mortgages unless someone else buys them. And that has nothing to do with defaulting, since sale of a loan cannot change the terms of the loan.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

A value added tax on absolutely everything is the way to go. Everyone pays. If people feel that the poor cannot make it they can be subsidised by direct means, but the blanket VAT causes the least distortion to the economy and ensures no-one escapes.

If in the PLACE OF the current tax, I would consider it. If in addition to the current tax, then no.

The total amount taxed/spent by the government sector should be a different discussion than the technical one of how to raise the money. Sadly that never turns out to be the case. The pols will never let an opportunity to increase the take go by.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

"market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence."

yes, that's the super rich with their packages of mortgages, selling them at inflated prices (we now them as 'toxic loans') into the global money market who didn't exercise due care in buying them.

(we, the rest of society, have now 'chosen' to buy them, to make sure that the super rich don't lose out)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Defaulting preceded economic slowdown. Check out the graphs.

defaulting came after the banks froze. the banks froze because the super rich couldn't, in the end, dump all their toxic loans into the market.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding