Where is the US economy headed?

I am in favor of a federal retail sales tax, but if such a reform is passed, it MUST be accompanied by the elimination of the income tax. Of course, I don't look for that to happen.

The tax can be progressive by charging no sales tax on housing up to a certain threshold, or on food. Businesses already administer state and local sales tax, and some states exclude food.

Such would eliminate the black market of people avoiding income taxes. Also, drug dealers and criminals would pay tax when they buy stuff as well. Rich people buy more stuff and more expensive stuff, so the tax would be very progressive. I have also seen proposals where people that earn low incomes could still earn low income credits, to preserve the current extremely progressive nature of the income tax system. Unfortunately, a smaller bureaucracy would probably still be necessary to administer that facet of it, plus continue the collection of social security and medicare taxes.

Such a system would make domestic companies more on a level playing field with foreign companies that sell goods here. There was another thread where all of this was discussed in some detail, but it died out.

I don't look for anything like this to happen because there are too many special interests vested in the current system.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rich people buy more stuff and more expensive stuff, so the tax would be very progressive.

Nope. Tax is only progressive if the rate changes. The fact that the rich purchase more stuff doesn't make the tax progressive; it just means they paid the same amount of tax on more possessions they own.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

About the time I think you are reasonable, then you throw out nonsense. Come on, think outside your preconceived notion of a rate change. No tax on food makes it progressive. No tax on housing to a threshold makes it progressive. It is 0% to a certain amount and blank % above that. That makes it progressive. Earning a credit for low income makes the proposed reform progressive. Quit smokin and you might be able to think clearly.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

About the time I think you are reasonable, then you throw out nonsense. Come on, think outside your preconceived notion of a rate change. No tax on food makes it progressive. No tax on housing to a threshold makes it progressive. It is 0% to a certain amount and blank % above that. That makes it progressive. Earning a credit for low income makes the proposed reform progressive. Quit smokin and you might be able to think clearly.

Take a hit and maybe you'd relax a little Smile

I agree that the no tax on food etc. part is progressive. Just disagree that this:

Quote:

Rich people buy more stuff and more expensive stuff, so the tax would be very progressive.

Is in indicator of progressivity under a flat sales tax plan.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Take a hit and maybe you'd relax a little Cycloptichorn

No thanks, cyclops, I am perfectly happy without it. Drugs and alcohol I have never understood the allure and I don't care to find out. Why would anyone wish to fog their mind with anything? I don't get it.

P.S. If you should ever decide to kick the habit, I think it would bode good things for you, including the possibility that behind all that fog, there is really a conservative mind hidden that will be able to climb out of the darkness into the light.

0 Replies

i'll refrain from commenting on this and let the story speak for itself .
hbg

Quote:

Detroit hit by housing sector woes
Auto industry slump helps make houses cheaper than cars

Kevin Krolicki
Reuters

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

DETROIT - With bidding stalled on some of the least desirable residences in Detroit's collapsing housing market, even the fast-talking auctioneer was feeling the stress.

"Folks, the ground underneath the house goes with it. You do know that, right?" he offered.

After selling house after house in the Motor City for less than the US$29,000 it costs to buy the average new car, the auctioneer tried a new line: "The lumber in the house is worth more than that!"

As Detroit reels from job losses in the U.S. auto industry, the depressed city has emerged as a boomtown in one area --foreclosed property.

It also stands as a case study in the economic pain from a housing bust as analysts consider whether a developing crisis in mortgages to high-risk borrowers will trigger a slowdown in the broader U.S. economy.

The rising cost of mortgage financing for Detroit borrowers with weak credit has added to the downdraft from a slumping local economy to send home values plunging faster than many investors anticipated a few months ago.

At a weekend sale of about 300 Detroit-area houses by Texas-based auction firm Hudson & Marshall Inc., the mood was marked more by fear than greed.

"These people are investors and they know the difficulty of finding financing. They know the difficulty of finding good tenants. They're cautious," said one realtor who attended the auction.

The city, which has lost more than half its population in the past 30 years and struggled with rising crime, failing schools and other social problems, largely missed out on the housing boom that swept much of the country in recent years.

Prices have gained less than 2% a year in the five years since 2001, when the auto industry entered a renewed slump.

Steve Izairi, 32, who re-financed his own house in suburban Dearborn and sold his restaurant to begin buying rental properties in Detroit two years, was concerned that houses he thought were bargains at US$70,000 two years ago were now selling for just US$35,000.

At least 16 Detroit houses up for sale on Sunday sold for US$30,000 or less.

A boarded-up bungalow on the city's west side brought US$1,300. A four-bedroom house near the original Motown recording studio sold for US$7,000.

"You can't buy a used car for that," said Mr. Izairi. "It's a gamble, and you have to wonder how low it's going to get."

Detroit, where unemployment runs near 14% and a third of the population lives in poverty, leads the nation in new foreclosure filings, according to tracking service Realty Trac.

With large swaths of the city now abandoned, banks are reclaiming and reselling Detroit homes from buyers who can no longer afford payments at seven times the national rate.

Michigan was the only state to see home prices fall in 2006. The national average price rose almost 6% but prices slipped 0.4% here, according to a federal study. The state's jobless rate of 7.1% in January was also the second highest in the nation, behind only Mississippi.

So investors, including some from out of state, proved far more cautious at Sunday's auction.

In the most spirited bidding of the day, a sprawling, four-bedroom mansion from Detroit's boom days fetched just US$135,000.

"These people that are buying have got to look at holding on for five to seven years," said Dave Webb, principal at Hudson & Marshall. "The key is holding power."

Even with the steep discounts on Detroit-area properties, some buyers handed over their deposits with a wince. "I'm not sure it's congratulations," said Kirk Neal, a 55-year-old auto-body shop worker who bought a ranch in the suburb of Oak Park for US$34,000. "My wife is going to kill me."

link :
...DETROIT HIT BY HOUSING SECTOR WOES...

0 Replies

That is all unfortunate, but there are lots of things to blame, most notably the auto companies themselves that forgot about holding down costs, top heaviness, wages, etc., also the unions that have priced themselves out of the market, not only with wages, but with benefits including expensive retirement packages and medical insurance.

Such things have happened all through history, with adjustments of industries, one notorious example being the mining industry, first booming, then going bust, leaving towns virtually abandoned all over the west, then repeating the cycle. The free market, by definition, makes adjustments, and without the adjustments, the ultimate conditions would be far worse than they are.

0 Replies

I agree with the cycle! But, if you do, Okie, you're forecasting big declines for the US in the next few years, as that's what the cycle predicts will happen.

Here's how bad our mortgage situation is:

Quote:

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

Written Statement of Irv Ackelsberg, Esquire
March 21, 2007

My name is Irv Ackelsberg. I am an attorney specializing in defending mortgage foreclosure and associated with the Philadelphia law firm of Langer and Grogan, P.C. I am also a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and I am on the board of the recently launched Americans for Fairness in Lending (www.affil.org). I retired last year, after 30 years of service, from Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, the nation's leading civil aid program. I and my former colleagues at CLS have probably reviewed more abusive subprime transactions than any other law firm in the country. We are familiar with the practices of the companies that once dominated the subprime mortgage market, and the ones now in the news.

The subprime mortgage market has, for the last decade, grown at an astronomical rate. This growth has been fueled in large part by a collapse in underwriting practices and responsible lending principles; by a sales-pressured, get-rich-quick environment that has infected the market with blatant fraud and abuse, and a regulatory apparatus that has abdicated its traditional role to protect the American consumer from exploitive lending practices. In my view, and in the view of most consumer housing specialists, this fraud infested market has been producing very little social benefit. While the particular abuses most prevalent are somewhat different than those we saw in the late 90's, the effects on the American homeowner have been steadily growing: unprecedented levels of foreclosures and equity-theft, all happening in full view of banking regulators.

At the ground level, from the standpoint of the America's neighborhoods, this growth in subprime lending has been the equivalent of a gold rush, where the gold being prospected is the home equity wealth of American homeowners. This gold rush has erupted because of the complete collapse in mortgage underwriting integrity. To put it bluntly, mortgage origination practices have been run over by the pursuit of profits at any cost. I want to describe for you some of this gold-rush-induced collapse in underwriting, but first I want to dispel two myths about subprime mortgage loans that the industry has been promoting.

First, it is not true that the typical subprime borrower is a low-income, first-time home-buyer purchasing his or her home. The majority of these loans are to existing homeowners who are being convinced to refinance their debt inappropriately. Sometimes the occasion for the transaction is a home improvement; sometimes runaway credit card balances drive the deal; sometimes the reasons for the loan are hard to discern. The bottom line is that if we want to look at these transactions as "opportunity" loans, the opportunity lies with the broker or lender profiting on the deal, not with the homeowner.

The second myth is that these mortgages are credit-repair products. If that were true, most borrowers with subprime loans would be transitioning into prime products and the industry would essentially be lending itself out of existence. In fact, the opposite is the true. The subprime portion of the market has been steadily rising. Data gathered by researchers from The Reinvestment Fund on subprime lending in Philadelphia confirms that, particularly with low and moderate income borrowers, there is scant evidence of credit repair. On the contrary, there has been significant movement in the opposite direction, with borrowers in prime mortgage products transitioning into subprime.

The current abuses we are seeing include the following:

* Exploding adjustable mortgages with initial teaser rates that are underwritten to the teaser rate, not to the subsequent inevitable adjustment. This means that, at the time the loan is being made, there is no evidence of borrower repayment ability past the first two or three years of the loan.
* The widespread use of "no-doc", "stated" income loans.
* The absence of escrow for tax and insurance obligations which adds deception to the advertised payment and increases the likelihood of foreclosure.

In testimony I gave to the Federal Reserve Board last year, I called their attention to a sample securitization of New Century from the first quarter of 2006. Of the $1.4 billion of mortgage loans in that pool, only 10% were traditional 30-yr. fixed-rates, and an amazing 45% of those mostly adjustable-rate loans were "no-docs." The coming foreclosure crisis should not be a surprise to anyone, except perhaps for the magnitude. What we are seeing today, I believe, is a runaway train that is only starting to gather its speed. These recent foreclosures reflect large numbers of early payment defaults, that is, homeowners defaulting during the fixed-rate periods on their loans. We have yet to see the full effect of such a large share of outstanding mortgages starting to adjust upward. It is not unreasonable to predict as many as 5 million foreclosures over the course of the next several years. A number this high would represent one out of 15 homeowners in this country.

The inevitable question, then, is what can be done to reverse this course. We need to focus on constructing relief for those in trouble now and on imposing appropriate limits on the future lending practices of this industry. I have several suggestions.

In terms of addressing the coming foreclosure tsunami, we first have to recognize who is doing the foreclosures and why. It may be that the lenders testifying today have no interest in taking homes, but it is not the lenders who will be foreclosing. These loans are all made to order for Wall Street investors who purchase them almost immediately after they are created. Foreclosure decisions are made by massive servicing organizations that work for these investors. In the ordinary course of their business, these servicers never have to justify a quick foreclosure; they do, however, have to answer to their investors for any forbearance being offered to the borrowers. I believe that Congress will need to mandate moratoriums and debt restructuring in order to avoid a national disaster and to insure that the investors are absorbing some of the losses that otherwise will fall solely on America's homeowners. In the long run, however, the interests of financial markets and of homeowners are not in conflict: the downward spiral in property values that will be caused by massive foreclosures is something that only real estate speculators should wish to see.

As for civilizing this origination market gone amok, there are many sensible proposals that consumer advocates have been offering, such as imposing a suitability standard on mortgage-writing like what exists in the sale of securities, and imposing assignee liability on those who purchase these loans and fuel the market. On the latter approach, Congress already has used this tool effectively in the HOEPA legislation to successfully drive down the excessive points and fees that represented an earlier form of market abuse. Congress can and should take similarly dramatic action to curb these socalled "exotic" mortgages which, I submit, should be properly named "poisonous" or "irresponsible" mortgages. Actually, the Federal Reserve Board can do this on its own, using the "unfair and deceptive practices" authority that Congress granted the Board in HOEPA. And, finally, at the very least, Congress should let the states continue to make progress in this area and put to rest the specter of industry-sponsored, federal preemption.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

That is all unfortunate, but there are lots of things to blame, most notably the auto companies themselves that forgot about holding down costs, top heaviness, wages, etc., also the unions that have priced themselves out of the market, not only with wages, but with benefits including expensive retirement packages and medical insurance.

Such things have happened all through history, with adjustments of industries, one notorious example being the mining industry, first booming, then going bust, leaving towns virtually abandoned all over the west, then repeating the cycle. The free market, by definition, makes adjustments, and without the adjustments, the ultimate conditions would be far worse than they are.

i guess the depression was one such adjustment , but it caused great devastion in the united states and all over the worlld .
i'm not sure if the cost to ordinary americans has ever been totalled up , but i am sure the amount would be astounding .
perhaps i have assumed - foolishly - that governments are elected to ensure that the ordinary citizen is afforded some protection from the excesses of an economy controlled by "the big ones" .
hbg

0 Replies

Well then, I suppose so.
I posted a new topic, it has something to do with this one, but not entirely. Lets look at the economics, how unstable a democratcy, and why that is so. Well, first I must direct you to my forum topic in the same section called: Are you asleep? Second: The problem with America as we know it is that we're getting lazy, and the same goes for the rich and poor. Rich people are looking to thier current products to sell more and more, and keep building up thier money. While poor people are gaining weight from the stress they go through trying to make the bills. Why is such a high percent of America in dept? Lets look at that: The common person, by that I mean the poeple content having a simple calling in life such as being a receptionist or a cash register worker, arn't making the money to make ends meet without having two or three jobs, and sometimes those jobs arn't availible either. That's because around 92% of America shares 20% of the wealth, while 8% of the people in America hold 80% of it. Does this need to be fixed? It's unballencing America, and the bills that facade it's most detrimental aspect are the reason why there are less and less jobs, less products acutally made in America.

Maybe, just maybe... What if we changed the system?! What if we made it to where the more you made the more taxes were taken out in equal percent? Say, a person owns a buisness and it's around 35 million dollars a year that he makes. Well, when a common person wins the loto for 1 million a little over half is taken out of it. How about we cut that 35 million that he's getting per year for owning that company down to about 17.5 million. They still have a good sum of money, but they are giving back to the government so that the government has funds for improving our country as a whole. Well, we all know those figures arn't right either. Say someone makes around 25 thousand a year and gets about 3 thousand taken out in taxes if the same percent was equally applied to those who have more to give then the government would have pelenty funds to keep running.

I'm just saying instead of letting the wealth of America set in some person's bank account, let him be rich and give to the country what he doesn't need. Maybe we could have a better educational system, or plubic universities that you could futher your education without a fee. Sure, it would put colleges and univerities out of buisness, but it would make the edcuation availible to all and not just those willing to break their legs and arms to pay it off afterwards, or the pocket stuffer's childern.

We have the technolegy today to set up a government controlled by the people. With universities set up free of charge funded by the government we could all get educations, better yet, we could set up a course of study that speciallised in political science, economics, ethics. Have it be a two year course of extended education that gave you an extended citizenship, and since it's free anyone could do it, and it would allow you to vote on the issues instead of voting for the people who do vote on them. Removing another corruptive aspect and nailing the greed in this country to the wall. They'll have to create new technolegies and new products and America would rise in the industerial path yet again. Maybe, just maybe our way of life has a fleeting chance to continue if we make a few changes. We've been hanging by a thread for way too long though.

0 Replies

LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.

One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.

Thirdly, a pure democracy is not a good thing, and can be very destructive if the majority have all power. The entire philosophy of this country is based on the rights of individuals, not the majority. If you have gone to school, I think the school utterly failed you, and did not teach the basics of government, civics, or even spelling to you.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.

One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.

Thirdly, a pure democracy is not a good thing, and can be very destructive if the majority have all power. The entire philosophy of this country is based on the rights of individuals, not the majority. If you have gone to school, I think the school utterly failed you, and did not teach the basics of government, civics, or even spelling to you.

A pure democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

0 Replies

Well...

okie wrote:

LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.

One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.
Thirdly, a pure democracy is not a good thing, and can be very destructive if the majority have all power. The entire philosophy of this country is based on the rights of individuals, not the majority. If you have gone to school, I think the school utterly failed you, and did not teach the basics of government, civics, or even spelling to you.

Ok, I seem to have gotten a semi intelligent responce. To tell you the truth, I'm new to this politics, but I assure you my schooling was not quite as efficent as one would hope. However, I assure you they covered at least some of the subjects you projected prominately in your attempt to insult this individual.

- "Already doing what I'm advocating": If they are I'm looking for the middle class, and I'd like to see a person out of high school who doesn't work 2-3 jobs to get out on thier own these days, I'd also be kinda nice if you'd direct me to a peer of mine not scrapping for a living: that hasn't gotten a boost from mom and dad, gone off to college funded by someone else, and prefferibly no one who's chin deep in dept because of it.

-"Commi!" : first word you say in politics in America when you don't like someone's views. Thanks for the lesson.

-"Pocket stuffers arn't all that bad!" : That's funny; it's common since that they pay the majority, they make more, it makes since. However, that does not mean that it's ballenced correctly.

-"Every individual vote would count? Oh noes!" : Pure democracy, first off isn't what I was discribing. I was discribing a potential intelligent pure democracy. In which I advocated an extended education was required to vote on the issues, the problem with a "Pure Democracy" is very easy to see: everyone would have diffrent views, alot of those views would be unintelligent. However, with an extended education to make those with the views better understand the ideals and concepts, more views would be intelligent even if they were diffrent. That wouldn't stop people from having diffrent views, however it would make them semi-creditible at the least.

-"School" : Well, I think you're right on this one, which is another reason for what I've stated. Public schools these days... Most of the education I do have, I earned myself, by researching topics and knowlege on my own, through my own persuit. Personally I'd love to have gone to your high school, then maybe I'd know all the innerworkings of government! It acutally intrest me!? No better yet! You pay for my college and I'll agree with you!

The problem is, the schooling we are provided publicly is found wanting, as in it's really not that great. They dabble in this and that, a little of language, a little of history, a bit of math, a dash of sicence, don't forget a pinch of art and phsyical health.. and "Poof!" as they say, "Go out into the world, and good luck! We prepared you the best we could."

So in trying to mock me you have given me alot to work with, thank you for giving me a chance to support my ideals by pointing out just how right you are!

0 Replies

Richard Saunders wrote:

A pure democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

Who being the wolf and who being the sheep, and who do they represent ideally?

So many possiblities...

2 wolves(millionairs) 1 sheep(adverage income earner) ? If so I belive it would be eight wolves and ninty-two sheep!

2 wolves(smart people) 1 sheep (not so smart?)? If so I believe the numbers would be highly inaccrate and hard to distern since each has his own, opinion.

If you just said it without an acutal meaning or intent, then I'm sorry for trying to figure out just what you were getting at.

0 Replies

Re: Well...

LockeD wrote:

Ok, I seem to have gotten a semi intelligent responce. To tell you the truth, I'm new to this politics, but I assure you my schooling was not quite as efficent as one would hope. However, I assure you they covered at least some of the subjects you projected prominately in your attempt to insult this individual.

I apologize if you consider it an insult. I do not mean to insult. I meant to sort of post information as a wake up call to you. As a senior citizen, I have been through all that you may be experiencing.

In terms of working 2 or 3 jobs, and receiving help, I agree that many launch into life these days very ill prepared for making a living. To provide a bit of context, I graduated from high school in the 60's, and knew my parents would not be able to afford to pay for my college, so at their encouragement and support, I began working during the summers after the 8th grade, and saved enough money to get started in college, with help of a scholarship or two. It has never been easy to succeed. It took planning and education, depending on what you want to do. First of all, you need to have direction, motivation, and commitment to succeed at anything. Attitude is probably the most important component of all components to making a living.

I am not implying this is your situation at all, but it is all too common for people or girls to shack up, have a kid or two, drop out of school, and then wonder why it is so hard to make a living. Well, duh?

I am sorry to mention communism, but I see the temptation stronger now to resort to what may look good on paper, but in reality it does not work that well, for more than a few reasons. I realize you were not considering your idea to fit that category, but when you start discussing re-distribution of wealth, it is a valid point to bring up.

In regard to democracy, we vote for people that we trust, to conduct policy that is according to the constitution, that is better for the country in the long run, not necessarily for gratifying the population, which a pure democracy tends to do. No government is perfect, but we tend to muddle along, and so far in the first 200 some years of this country, we have been pretty successful.

I agree education is severely lacking. We are top heavy in administration and the federal government should kindly back out of the issue and once again let the locals run their own schools in entirety. We would have more accountability. We need to quit teaching politically correct issues and giving away condoms and everything that goes along with it, and get back to teaching basics, such as math, reading, writing, and science. We need to teach more accurate and basic civics. We need to teach citizenship, not to include politically correct stuff, but how to plan for and make a living, how to balance a checkbook, and simple economics, personal, and simple things like free markets and supply and demand.

LockeD, I think you are on the right track to start figuring some of this out, and if you continue, you will be okay. Just find something you are very interested in and want to do well, then do it, be frugal and responsible financially and in your personal relationships, also totally honest, make good decisions, and you will be fine. In your jobs, show up on time and do your best to do a good job, do not jump from job to job, and you will be okay.

0 Replies

okie
okie, It's hard for me to talk to you. I understand where your comming from with your point of view. Personally I had a chance to go to college and it's hard to think about. I can't deside weither to take the money my parents are offering, which would barely cover a year of college, and leaving them broke and myself in dept afterwards till I find a good paying job so I can pay it off and pay them back. Which would take a substantial amount of time, and cause some disconfort for my mother and father. I think that futhering your education is a noble cause, I think that it should be free though, and it is, the books are there, they're in the libary. The fact you have no one to go through them with you or that you didn't pay for it shouldn't hold you back from getting a job your quilified to do though.

Why shouldn't you beable to persue your calling in life? Whatever that may be. Say a scientist? Go to school go into dept just for your research to take years to finish and still not pay off your dept. Technolegy in this country is not advancing as it should, it is, but not as much as it could. If anyone who was interested could study anything they wanted without worring about struggling maybe we'd have a cure for HIV? Maybe we'd have more astro-physicist? Maybe we'd have intersteller travel technolegy and be exploring the gallaxy or universe even, maping it's cycles and finding more planets with the requirements for life, that we could inhabit to save our earth-side natural resources? Maybe we'd invent a newer technolegy to protect against nuclear and biological attack?

Hell lets shoot for the big ones: World hunger, world peace, utopia?

0 Replies

Quote:

One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.

I kept looking for the part of the post where you explained, Okie, that a family of 4 who makes 25k a year is barely scraping by and is living in debt, continually. If they are making it at all.

But no, your only complaint is that these people' don't pay the tax burden. Never mind the fact that they do - they pay payroll taxes which are roughly equivalent to anyone else. Then, they get refunded at the end of the year. But who do you think benefits from the interest on that money during the course of the year? That's right, the rest of us.

The poor - who get refunded their taxes at the end of the year if they make below a certain level - still use bridge financing to help keep our nation afloat. To denigrate these people who already are having a tough life as 'communist' is indiciative of a misunderstanding of taxes.

The rich pay the vast majority of taxes because they have the vast majority of money. In fact, they have grown in amount of money faster during the last 6 years than in the time before that - increasing the percentage of taxes they pay. What you are describing is the inevitable effect of the rich becoming richer; they pay a higher percentage in taxes. Yet you ascribe it as if it is some sort of negative for them. You have it all backwards, crying for the rich and talking about how easy the poor have it. Unbelievable

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good points!
Thank you Cycloptichorn, you hit the spot of my point. However we never addressed okies view on how he views the lower class! I just re-read his post, and personally the sterotype he used, with the people who have it rough, because they dropped out of school, had kids and all that jive!

I respect your opinion, okie, but seriously, do I read like I didn't graduate high school? Well, I did, and I don't have a wife and kids yet. I guess I'm one of those with the willpower to hold my primal sexual urges in long enough to try to get set up money wise before I get married and pop a few out the oven! However, speaking for others like me, I highly doupt that your ideal of the common person is as common as you think. Ofcourse there are plenty of cases as such, however, the ones who did graduate and did apply for college and did do the research, and do work, and still live with thier parents, because they can't afford to move out. They are screaming back at you: "I was good! I did what I was supposed to! Why is this so freaking Hard!" It's like you want us to break our backs for a living.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have it all backwards, crying for the rich and talking about how easy the poor have it. Unbelievable

Cycloptichorn

At least correctly interpret what I said, cyclops. You did not even come close.

LockeD, nothing worth anything should be handed to anybody and everbody on a silver platter. I do agree that college is expensive, but you don't have to go to the most expensive schools available. It is better to study hard in high school, make good grades, and you have a better chance for scholarship. Delay marriage and kids until you can better afford such things after you have at least a year or two of college under your belt.

If you don't know what you are interested in, then don't waste your parents money. Get a job and work for a year or so. There are lots of options. It is a free country. Don't whine and complain, but instead appreciate the vast number of opportunities that are available to you.

Work is part of life. I would just say, suck it up, and do your best, it will work out. Complaining will not get anyone very far in this world. I worked from the time I was 14 years old, every summer, but did not work during the school year until I was a junior in college. I personally know kids now going to college and they are not whining and complaining. They are doing fine.

It sounds like you are already doing what needs to be done, but I would simply suggest more patience and less complaining. Enjoy the scenery along the way instead of bemoaning the fact that you have not arrived at some destination in the future. I am trying not to sound harsh, just realistic. Millions of people are trying to get to this country because of the opportunity here. Ask any 80 to 90 year old person you know to compare today with when they were young, and I think they would tell you to appreciate the opportunities, and that we have it far better than they did.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sat 24 Mar 2007

US mortgage crisis forces homeowners to take refuge in their cars
SUE ZEIDLER IN LOS ANGELES

THEY are victims of the United States' growing mortgage crisis - low-paid workers whose homes have been repossessed amid rising interest rates, a stagnant property market and a lax lending regime.

But in Los Angeles, where having a car is as essential as owning a home, many are sleeping in their vehicles to ensure a roof over their head.

Campaigners for the homeless expect more to hole up in their cars as they lose homes due to the problems that have dogged "subprime mortgages" - those granted to low-earners with little capital of their own.

The trend comes despite the fact that sleeping in a car is illegal in the Los Angeles area.

"The subprime meltdown is the kind of situation that pushes people into cars. It's a very common story," said Ruth Hollman, of Self-Help And Recovery Exchange, a group that helps homeless people.

Advocates hope Los Angeles will adopt programmes in place in cities such as Eugene, Oregon, and Santa Barbara, California, that enable people to live in cars while receiving services they need to get back on track.

"It's an old saying in social services that most people are one to six paychecks away from being homeless. But if you can't make your mortgage, it's more like a month or two," said William Wise, of the relief agency St Vincent de Paul of Eugene, which works to find overnight parking spots for homeless people.

Without such spots, people forced to sleep in their cars fear being towed and ticketed by police, as well as being attacked by thugs and facing public scorn.

Emily Love, 61, was sleeping in her car in Marina Del Rey, California, when two youths smashed her windscreen with a shopping trolley. A week later, she was back in the car.

After her car was attacked, the former teacher sat staring at the shattered glass. "I don't like to talk to the cops. They don't like people sleeping in their cars," she said in her car crammed with her possessions, including two cats.

Government figures say there are about 754,000 homeless people in the US, about 300,000 more than available beds in shelters and transitional housing.
Many of the temporarily homeless get into deeper trouble because they try to keep it quiet and do not seek help.

Philip Mangano, of the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, said he strongly opposed programmes that sanction living in cars.

"It's a national tragedy that we are resorting to these plans. It doesn't measure up to the promise of America," he said.

Mr Mangano has been working with cities to develop ten-year plans to end vagrancy through a new business- oriented approach that has cut homelessness in cities such as San Francisco and Philadelphia.

The number of people living in cars is hard to calculate, but Ruth Hollman said a recent estimate of 1,000 in Los Angeles was far below the actual figure. She said some people living in their cars pay gym memberships so they can shower, and attend training courses or have jobs. "One man I know goes to college and people there don't even know he's homeless," she said.

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=457122007

Last updated: 24-Mar-07 03:22 BST

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know