Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Goat, this one goes both ways. Clinton letting HUD give out the money like ice cream and the dummies that signed up for the houses. 2 wrongs by both sides have almost put us into the abyss.
Oh, it's definitely a two-way street on that one. The government enabled the risky lending and people with a $50k a year salary were simply all too eager to buy $400k houses on no-doc interest only ARM's.
I remember when I bought my first house, I pretty much told the lender what our annual income was and they told me, great you're approved for X, go pick out a house (not quite that simple, but almost). The last time around, I think I had to provide blood and hair samples along with a written decleration of my entire lifes history and goals (again, not quite, but close enough, lol).
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,809 posts, read 34,419,348 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Kind of like how Clinton decided we should all be able buy houses with no money down?
Yeah, & let's not forget 2 rounds of Reagonomics. . .
There is no way that money flows downhill. Where I'm at now, they are finally getting the construction people back to work. This is getting money flowing in the local economy.
Yeah, & let's not forget 2 rounds of Reagonomics. . .
There is no way that money flows downhill. Where I'm at now, they are finally getting the construction people back to work. This is getting money flowing in the local economy.
Those with family members or who are employees in a Public Office (Police, Fire, Teacher, Municipal) and will be collecting a pension from the state can only collect a portion of whatever their Social Security benefit would have been (IIRC it is 40%) When this was put into place in I believe the early 70's each individual department had the option of staying in social security or getting out of it. Some did, Some didnt. My Agency Did..another friend, who works at the county level pays 100% of Social Security..yet when she retires she can only collect 40% of her benefit (Say her projected benefit was $1000 per month, that means because she gets a Pension from the state of NJ she can only collect $400.00, Congress considered Social Security AND a Pension to be "Double Dipping....Little did they realize that NJ Politicians would to exactly that with multiple pensions..but that's another rant). I Still pay Social Security on Side work..but Last notice I got was my Social Security would be around $288.00/month when I hit 65. There have been many arguments that if you worked before or after your Public Career, THAT income's Social Security would not be affected by the "Double Dipping" Law..however that has never actually been shown on paper.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,809 posts, read 34,419,348 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
which way does money flow?
It bubbles up. Construction workers & retail people spend what they make. The rich are more prone to saving money. Saving money is not bad, but our economy depends on spending.
It bubbles up. Construction workers & retail people spend what they make. The rich are more prone to saving money. Saving money is not bad, but our economy depends on spending.
i found it interesting that people would get stimulus checks with the understanding that they will quickly spend any money given to them. if thats true, how is that in any way sustainable? it was so stupid.
but i think the important thing is to make sure you have jobs for people and that means making it easier for people to start businesses. i also think people shouldnt be encouraging bad behavior like pissing away every penny they have. i dont think thats really good for the economy.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,809 posts, read 34,419,348 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
i found it interesting that people would get stimulus checks with the understanding that they will quickly spend any money given to them. if thats true, how is that in any way sustainable? it was so stupid.
but i think the important thing is to make sure you have jobs for people and that means making it easier for people to start businesses. i also think people shouldnt be encouraging bad behavior like pissing away every penny they have. i dont think thats really good for the economy.
This may surprise you, but I totally agree.
However, our tax system tends to reward the rich (I'm talking the filthy rich, so don't draw the wrong conclusion) The current recession (We are starting to come out, but it's still current.) proved what I said.
Where I currently live, construction has been getting back to work. Retail is now picking up. My town has seen a couple of new restaurants, etc. as money circulates, more jobs will come.
However, our tax system tends to reward the rich (I'm talking the filthy rich, so don't draw the wrong conclusion) The current recession (We are starting to come out, but it's still current.) proved what I said.
Where I currently live, construction has been getting back to work. Retail is now picking up. My town has seen a couple of new restaurants, etc. as money circulates, more jobs will come.
Jobs, across the board, are esssential.
i think it's been pretty well displayed over the past 40 years where the money goes. it goes into the ever widening gap between the top and the rest of us.
i'd love to see things get easier for people to start a business, and create more jobs. but the tax policies don't do that. they help to funnel money upwards, through various loopholes that the very top can enjoy, while the middle class and lower class gets left behind, further and further.
when it comes to stimulus, maybe it's bad policy, but it's pretty much common sense...if you give someone who makes (arbitrary - as i don't pretend to know what this number should be) over $500,000 and extra $1,000 this year...what is your expectation of what they do with that? conversely, if you give someone who makes $50,000 a $100 check....they are pretty likely to treat themselves to something, such as a dinner, a new xbox game, whatever. so we do know where the money needs to go if we choose these policies.
same thing with taxes. it's why the whole concept of "trickle down" has still not been proven true. because only some of it will trickle down. but if you give the folks at the bottom more of their cash back, they'll buy more goods and services, increasing demand, putting more profits in the businesses' hands...and putting them in a position to hire more people.
the bottom line is...tax code needs to be simplified so that people pay their taxes. if that means lowering the rate, but eliminating the loopholes...then do it!
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,809 posts, read 34,419,348 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
i think it's been pretty well displayed over the past 40 years where the money goes. it goes into the ever widening gap between the top and the rest of us.
i'd love to see things get easier for people to start a business, and create more jobs. but the tax policies don't do that. they help to funnel money upwards, through various loopholes that the very top can enjoy, while the middle class and lower class gets left behind, further and further.
when it comes to stimulus, maybe it's bad policy, but it's pretty much common sense...if you give someone who makes (arbitrary - as i don't pretend to know what this number should be) over $500,000 and extra $1,000 this year...what is your expectation of what they do with that? conversely, if you give someone who makes $50,000 a $100 check....they are pretty likely to treat themselves to something, such as a dinner, a new xbox game, whatever. so we do know where the money needs to go if we choose these policies.
same thing with taxes. it's why the whole concept of "trickle down" has still not been proven true. because only some of it will trickle down. but if you give the folks at the bottom more of their cash back, they'll buy more goods and services, increasing demand, putting more profits in the businesses' hands...and putting them in a position to hire more people.
the bottom line is...tax code needs to be simplified so that people pay their taxes. if that means lowering the rate, but eliminating the loopholes...then do it!
This is exactly what I meant when I said that in our economy, money bubbles up. It doesn't trickle down.
What we have now is Reagonomics, part 2, compliments of W. It did not work the 1st time & most certainly not the 2nd time. Does Christy Whitman (to give the term filthy rich a name & face) need a stimulus check for $1K? No. She'd put it in a fund. Joe Blow who is an average working stiff, if given his share, of maybe $50 is gonna blow is on a steak or lobster dinner, or new shoes for someone in his family.
Sending jobs off shore while rewarding the busineses who did it was atrocious. It forced out the companies who stayed & still provided jobs here.
i think it's been pretty well displayed over the past 40 years where the money goes. it goes into the ever widening gap between the top and the rest of us.
i'd love to see things get easier for people to start a business, and create more jobs. but the tax policies don't do that. they help to funnel money upwards, through various loopholes that the very top can enjoy, while the middle class and lower class gets left behind, further and further.
when it comes to stimulus, maybe it's bad policy, but it's pretty much common sense...if you give someone who makes (arbitrary - as i don't pretend to know what this number should be) over $500,000 and extra $1,000 this year...what is your expectation of what they do with that? conversely, if you give someone who makes $50,000 a $100 check....they are pretty likely to treat themselves to something, such as a dinner, a new xbox game, whatever. so we do know where the money needs to go if we choose these policies.
same thing with taxes. it's why the whole concept of "trickle down" has still not been proven true. because only some of it will trickle down. but if you give the folks at the bottom more of their cash back, they'll buy more goods and services, increasing demand, putting more profits in the businesses' hands...and putting them in a position to hire more people.
the bottom line is...tax code needs to be simplified so that people pay their taxes. if that means lowering the rate, but eliminating the loopholes...then do it!
Agree 100 percent
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.