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.
Better raise that amount to well over $1 million. The people I know making $1-2 mill a year own businesses and work 70-80 hours a week busting their buttts... and they are paying their employees very well. A great number started their companies themselves (nothing was handed to them) and the whole family sacrificed in different ways to build the company. After years the company finally starts to pay off. Your statement ".... need only leverage their capital in the correct ways to increase their wealth, no true work is required." -- if this is said in reference to those making $1-2 mill and sweating by their brow for it - the statement is highly offensive.
Plus, they are paying their fair share in taxes -- there are no loopholes or hiding $$ overseas.
They also care about their employees and keep "feeding the machine" with their hard work not just for their own personal gain but to keep their employees working, pay for the health coverage for the families, etc. They feel a responsibility for the people who work for them.
Keep in mind there is also cost for workers comp and the ever increasing business and insurances costs (such as liability). Also keep in mind that these employers are bearing the risk of their company - if things go sour, they are the ones who shoulder the loss.
Overtax this group of relatively small employers and what is their incentive to keep going? Just like the average Joe, who wants to work harder and longer hours for less pay? I've heard some say if it gets too bad, they will just downsize or pack up their toys and go home. What good will that be for anyone?
I've already asked you to do that. You haven't. All you ever post is your opinion.
Fact-check it. Those were your orders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Again, nothing more than your opinion. You've never provided proof or verification of what you claim is false information.
It is your source who claimed that CRA loans have 100% loss rates. No citation from your source for that. What information do you have that would back him up? Any? Any at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The rest of your post is just very superficial and wishful thinking.
Is that right...it merely takes your own source (the only reputable one you put up) and follows along with its analysis step by step. What is superficial and wishful thinking here is for you to believe that you actually understand any of this material or that you have any pertinent case to make regarding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You seem to not understand how the CRA and Clinton's revision of the CRA in 1995 impacted the subprime loan market and led to an increasing shift to creative securitization to make the increasing numbers of high-risk mortgages more marketable to investors.
Really. As was noted earlier, the subprime market in 1995 was dominated by finance companies writing high-cost loans. What impact did CRA revisions have on them? What means were they using for securitization? What portion of their portfolios conformed to GSE requirements at the time? The 1995 CRA revisions standardized and simplified the review process for covered institutions, making performance (rather than process compliance) the key variable, and the result was increased CRA loan volumes. The only change related to securitization was to allow the subprime portion of CRA lending to be securitized along with the prime portion. Nothing especially "creative" is involved in that.
To my knowledge, this is the first time they've been posted. But let's see, what are they? First an op-ed by a libertarian best known for signing a letter opposing last Fall's bank bailout bill. Then we have a piece from the Fall of 2000 when the current crisis was not yet even imaginable. And finally an editorial from that noted impartial source, Investor's Business Daily.
Do you seriously believe that I have an affirmative responsibility to debunk every piece of propagandist junk that you can copy and paste the URL of? You've so far put up one credible link out of five, and that one supported exactly everything that I've said. Go get another half dozen links. Go get another 500 pages. The internet is full of junk. You'll never run out.
Or...do some serious research for a change. Confine yourself to established and reputable sources. Learn what actually happened and why. Did you read the PBS transcript, for example? It doesn't take that long, and it's very lively reading. Any reaction to that? Ask yourself why it is that in all of the recent Congressional hearings into the reasons and causes for the mortgage and credit meltdowns, not one witness from anywhere has suggested that the CRA played any role at all. Why do you think that is?
Last edited by saganista; 03-01-2009 at 07:28 PM..
Would you not say it required an extraordinary amount of circumstances and actors to result in where we are today?
No, I wouldn't. There is always a complex set of actors and circumstances, some of which are working for good and some of which are not. As has been noted elsewhere, tax cuts for the rich and diversion of productivity gains away from wage increases and into corporate profits all but forced an era of low interest rates. That's a distortion, but not one which should result in economic collapse, and certainly not one that should freeze credit markets. Those outcomes resulted from an excess of bad paper being fed into secondary credit markets and there are only so many people who had any hand in that. Those people bear special blame and responsibility for where we are today, perhaps especially because other rational paths were open to them which they simply declined to take...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
I fully admit it's mind boggling trying to put it all (not just the criminal capitalist. Which crime by itself is capitalizing on someone else and their belongings) together especially with bits and pieces seeming to run all the way back to some laws and programs implemented around the time of the New Deal.
Without having any in front of me, I would say that most analyses that seem mind-bogglingly complex were designed by their authors to read that way. It's true that Fannie Mae was founded in 1938, but that's not really relevant, nor is the year in which Glass-Steagall was passed. Nearly everything germane to the actual results we have to deal with today occurred since 2001. The history prior to that may be interesting, but there is no array of tentacles stretching forward from the last century that came to rattle our cages in this one.
Last edited by saganista; 03-01-2009 at 07:25 PM..
Plus, they are paying their fair share in taxes -- there are no loopholes or hiding $$ overseas.
They also care about their employees and keep "feeding the machine" with their hard work not just for their own personal gain but to keep their employees working, pay for the health coverage for the families, etc. They feel a responsibility for the people who work for them.
Keep in mind there is also cost for workers comp and the ever increasing business and insurances costs (such as liability). Also keep in mind that these employers are bearing the risk of their company - if things go sour, they are the ones who shoulder the loss.
Overtax this group of relatively small employers and what is their incentive to keep going? Just like the average Joe, who wants to work harder and longer hours for less pay? I've heard some say if it gets too bad, they will just downsize or pack up their toys and go home. What good will that be for anyone?
You really think someone who makes 2 million a year taxable income, and pays roughly 34% in federal income tax, would actually just shut down the factory in event of any tax increase? Do you really think they'd lose all incentive to work as hard as they do if the tax rate was raised to 40% and they were now keeping only $1,200,000 instead of the previous $1,320,000? What would they do, go hire on as an employee somewhere else for less stress and a $1,140,000 pay cut? Get real.
It would be hardly considered a change in lifestyle to go from $1.3 million to $1.2 mil. At those levels, it's a negligible pay cut. Contrast with someone who is making $60,000 and struggling to just pay the bills and maybe save enough for retirement/kids college/medical, etc., and any tax cut or raise makes a big impact on their daily lives.
Who would you say is more deserving of having their tax burden lessoned? The factory owner who might have to delay buying that luxury condo on Maui by a few years if he doesn't get a tax cut, or the employee who might have to slash retirement savings to be able to pay the mortgage? I'm not saying the factory owner shouldn't be able to buy that condo, just that those who actually need the tax cut to keep their heads above water should be top priority.
You really think someone who makes 2 million a year taxable income, and pays roughly 34% in federal income tax, would actually just shut down the factory in event of any tax increase? Do you really think they'd lose all incentive to work as hard as they do if the tax rate was raised to 40% and they were now keeping only $1,200,000 instead of the previous $1,320,000? What would they do, go hire on as an employee somewhere else for less stress and a $1,140,000 pay cut? Get real.
It would be hardly considered a change in lifestyle to go from $1.3 million to $1.2 mil. At those levels, it's a negligible pay cut. Contrast with someone who is making $60,000 and struggling to just pay the bills and maybe save enough for retirement/kids college/medical, etc., and any tax cut or raise makes a big impact on their daily lives.
Who would you say is more deserving of having their tax burden lessoned? The factory owner who might have to delay buying that luxury condo on Maui by a few years if he doesn't get a tax cut, or the employee who might have to slash retirement savings to be able to pay the mortgage? I'm not saying the factory owner shouldn't be able to buy that condo, just that those who actually need the tax cut to keep their heads above water should be top priority.
George, give up while you're behind. You're in way over your head...
Does anyone else find it offensive when people talk about not wanting to raise taxes on the rich (I'll use 1 million+ per year for my definitiion of rich) because it's "taking away their hard earned money"?
The very rich do not earn their money in the same sense that average americans do. You all should know this by now! The very rich need only leverage their capital in the correct ways to increase their wealth, no true work is required.
The average person doesn't get paid if they aren't producing goods or performing services. They are the backbone of the economy, the creators of all the wealth. The rich have nothing without them.
It's offensive to the people who do the real work in this country, the teachers, drywall hangers, doctors, concrete pourers, road maintenance crews, computer programmers, bus drivers, loggers, carpet installers, anything you see on Dirty Jobs, etc. etc. etc. to compare the money they give their all for- to money made by simply leveraging capital, no work required!
It's also offensive to imply that a CEO's time is worth 400 times more than the average worker.
The way to get rich in this country is to start your own business. It's next to impossible to get truly rich through your labor alone. If you're a janitor, cleaning office buildings by yourself will only get you so far, one person can only do so much. The way to get rich is to start getting others to work for you! Pay them a wage and profit off every building they clean. Expand. Eventually, you will get to the point where you have 10 janitors working for you, and you will no longer have to do any cleaning yourself! Manage and grow the business for a few years, and then sell to a competitor for a nice cash out. You are now rich. If you are smart, you are now aggressively investing. Buy an office building to lease out (you don't have to deal with it, just hire a management company to handle the details). Give control of your money to the right people, and it will now grow on it's own. You've reached critical mass. Congratulations, you worked hard and smart and played the game well. and you've earned a nice big house and the car you've always wanted. Enjoy your life of leisure, we might be a little jealous, but we're not mad at ya.
Becoming rich is fine, but once you make it please remember that there are others working much harder than you are, for much less money, and it would only be fair for you to pay your fair share of taxes on the money that is now funneling into your bank account like magic. Especially considering the only reason your CarpetWorld inc. stock has money to pay you dividends is because Jim the carpet installer (making 35k) just finished on a 4 bedroom. You've earned your slice of the pie, but please don't get greedy and try to eat the whole thing, the little guy deserves more than crumbs.
Does anyone not agree that there is a distinction between hard earned money and capital gains?
I agree that Obama has been playing a very strong class warfare card, and you have bought the story.
You must think the American Middle Class is alive and well. Think again. The Census Data about household income over the last 30 years tell the story.
1:middle class ; alsoplural in construction: members of the middle class
2: a social order dominated by bourgeois
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.
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.
