Parts of site failed to load... If you are using an ad blocker addon, you should to disable it (it blocks more than ads and causes parts of the site to not work).
You know.. admittingly I just NOW watched that video posted because I thought the idea of faulting someone for the amount of homes they owned was just absolutely ridiculous.
Now that I've seen the video it seems even more ridiculous. The woman who's talking initially. Who's fault is it that she had to lose her first house?
She even mentions that her interest jumped up to 15.7% and she could no longer afford the interest. GUESS WHAT!!! She had an ARM. Just as the name suggests the rate is adjustable!!!!
Making wise fiscal decision is OUR OWN responsibility and I agree whole heartedly that it is a combination of lenders over-lending to people in addition to people not taking enough responsibility for themselves.
Lenders will usually only give you enough money to where it is at MOST 33% of your net Income, but that doesn't mean that you should spend 33% of your income on a home. A more ideal and responsible amount would be 20-25%.
I just picked up a mortgage myself recently. It is no more than 22% of my income (I made sure of this.. I didn't want to dedicate more than 1/4 of my paycheck to a home). It is a fixed rate so I will ALWAYS know what I'm paying.
It's almost disgusting to see Americans pointing their fingers at someone else because they couldn't maintain their own responsibility. A Mortgage is a binding contract and you should see to it that you can maintain your portion of the obligation prior to signing it.
If anyone was wondering why the economy is going downhill it's because of irresponsible people who make poor choices and then come running to the government when they screw up.
I'm sorry but I hold no sympathy for people who choose to live outside their means. Poverty and the poor/lower middle class I do hold sympathy for, but not for people who practice irresponsible behavior by borrowing more money than they can afford to hand out through a product that could fluxuate drastically on them.
I actually... agree with this in its entirety. Don't buy stuff you can't afford, then blame the government when it bites you in the ass.
Originally Posted by Bong30
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what Iâ??ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on whatâ??s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
First of all, so much for the "liberal media". It was a good and valid question, but a capital gains tax cut only increases revenue temporarily. Investors know when there's going to be a tax cut, and wait until then to sell their stocks, so after a capital gains tax cut, there's a spike. But once everything levels out, there really is less revenue after the cut.
This exchange is particularly revealing since Senator Obama actually admitted that a tax rate increase might lose revenue, but he held firm to his position that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an economics professor from an Ivy League university. He told me that he once asked his left-wing colleagues whether they would support lower tax rates if they knew that tax revenues would rise. Most of them, he said, shared Obamaâ??s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government.
^^^^^ this is what is wrong in America today^^^^^^^^
First of all, what these professors supposedly said is ridiculous, but Obama doesn't share their viewpoints. Second of all, Obama has said he would raise the rate to between 20 and 28 percent. Since you think Obama wants to ruin America, you will of course assume he wants to make it as high as possible, but he would probably make it lower than 28%.
Originally Posted by killerweed420
I don't think the government has the right to dictate what you can own but they can certainly tax it to death. No one is this country needs to make more than 100,000 grand a year. Anything over that should certainly be in the 50% tax bracket. I'm not concerned with individual tax payers but I would like to see corporate profits taxed. Its not like they are getting the money ethically. Corporations make money 3 ways.1: They screw there employees out of a living wage. 2: They screw there customers with over priced products. Or 3: They do both.
If no one could make more than $100,000, they would have no incentive to do anything once they made that. And your characterization of corporations is pretty ridiculous. Who do you think made the computer you made that post with? Our decent standard of living is due in large part to corporations. Trust me, even if you think living in a mud hut would be fun, their internet is really slow. :smokin:
Nobody should make over $100,000 a year? Sounds like socialism to the extreme. What incentive should there be, then, for anybody to work to aquire the skills of higher-paid possitions? I suppose if I spent 4 years in sciences, another 4 years in med school, another 2-7 in practicum, and another 3-5 in a specialization in medicine, as I would like to do one day, there should be no financial incentive or any kind for committing 18 or so years of my life to becoming a medical specialist. Economies and professions aren't built on good will and pixie dust you know.
Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.
Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.
A lot of things you need money to do. For instance, drug companies need millions of dollars to research new drugs. Power companies need money to implement emissions-controlling technology. Car companies need money to design more efficient engines, etc. Because corporate profits are taxed, most corporations reinvest most of the money they make anyway.
Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.
Special rights are granted to huge corporations, government sanctioned profit.
You are right higher taxes would be better. Those gas taxes should be higher since we are not using as much quanity, and getting the revenue from those gas sales. Right?
Dude Desiel at 489 a gallon almost sunk us. Remeber you have to pay it out FIRST before you can get it as a write OFF.
Big oil gets 8 cents per gallon
goverment what 14-50 cents per gallon for what ????
nothing... if big oil made record profits what did the goverment make?
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Bong30
Register To Reply
Staff Online