CBO: Buffett Tax would only bring in $47B over 10 years

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by rashi

 Only around 50% of people in this country pay a Federal Income Tax, and the 1% hides their earnings in non-profit organizations. So taxing isn't the issue, it's a spending issue.

Exactly.  Stop spending billions on wars.  Stop dropping those hundred thousand bombs on villagers and all this global policing.  
Wars huh?

 

[coogi sweaters]

You dudes can post up all the charts you want.

The Govt isn't going to get rid of any social benefits and they arent going to stop going to war.

I say let them, social benefits are like opium and do nothing but keep the people complacent with this abominable corporate government. I'd love to see the government cut them, it would turn into the wild wild west and maybe somethings will really change.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Coogi Sweaters

You dudes can post up all the charts you want.

The Govt isn't going to get rid of any social benefits and they arent going to stop going to war.

I say let them, social benefits are like opium and do nothing but keep the people complacent with this abominable corporate government. I'd love to see the government cut them, it would turn into the wild wild west and maybe somethings will really change.

It will change at some point.  The question is whether we have the courage to take it head on before it completely collapses our country.  I have heard more than one person say the biggest risk to our national security was our debt load.  Even Nikita Khrushchev said that the only thing that could collapse America was ourselves.

 

[shatterkneesinc]

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

it's not the wealthy's job to pull this country out of the hole the poor put it in.
getting taxed 300k if you make 1mil is horse !**$

really?.. you think it was "the poor" that put the US economy in its current state?

yeah poor people who bought houses when they couldn't pay their mortgage. and that horse gif had me dying too 

 perfect execution 
but if i made 1 mil but had to pay 30% to the government i would be heated and i know all you guys would too

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

 

[missdivadoll]

I don't know why people keep stating that raising taxes won't be enough and so the option is to cut spending and social programs. Why does it have to be either/or?

Economists have been saying that yes, we need to cut spending IN CONJUNCTION with raising taxes on the people who can afford it. Simply cutting spending to programs that poor people need to survive will balance the budget sure, but now you have a mass amount of homeless on the street and the economy tanking because anyone not making millions of dollars, has no money to spend. The rich will be fine, and keep their money and the poor and nearly non-existent middle class are +%# out.

It's going to have to be a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes on the top 2%. Of course, the only way this will happen is if Obm wins and the dems take back the majority in the house and senate, because we all know the stupid republicans currently in power, signed  that pledge never to raise taxes/will continue to protect the rich.

 

[bandit country]

Originally Posted by MissDivaDoll

I don't know why people keep stating that raising taxes won't be enough and so the option is to cut spending and social programs. Why does it have to be either/or?

Economists have been saying that yes, we need to cut spending IN CONJUNCTION with raising taxes on the people who can afford it. Simply cutting spending to programs that poor people need to survive will balance the budget sure, but now you have a mass amount of homeless on the street and the economy tanking because anyone not making millions of dollars, has no money to spend. The rich will be fine, and keep their money and the poor and nearly non-existent middle class are +%# out.

It's going to have to be a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes on the top 2%. Of course, the only way this will happen is if Obm wins and the dems take back the majority in the house and senate, because we all know the stupid republicans currently in power, signed  that pledge never to raise taxes/will continue to protect the rich.

Great point. Uncle Barry will be sure to cut spending.

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

it's not the wealthy's job to pull this country out of the hole the poor put it in.

getting taxed 300k if you make 1mil is horse !**$

really?.. you think it was "the poor" that put the US economy in its current state?

good lord, i didn't know we had people like that on NT. so pathetic

 

[missdivadoll]

Originally Posted by Bandit Country

Originally Posted by MissDivaDoll

I don't know why people keep stating that raising taxes won't be enough and so the option is to cut spending and social programs. Why does it have to be either/or?

Economists have been saying that yes, we need to cut spending IN CONJUNCTION with raising taxes on the people who can afford it. Simply cutting spending to programs that poor people need to survive will balance the budget sure, but now you have a mass amount of homeless on the street and the economy tanking because anyone not making millions of dollars, has no money to spend. The rich will be fine, and keep their money and the poor and nearly non-existent middle class are +%# out.

It's going to have to be a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes on the top 2%. Of course, the only way this will happen is if Obm wins and the dems take back the majority in the house and senate, because we all know the stupid republicans currently in power, signed  that pledge never to raise taxes/will continue to protect the rich.

Great point. Uncle Barry will be sure to cut spending.

Uncle Barry has agreed to cut spending already in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and the GOP wouldn't do it. They want their demands to be met (cut spending) but aren't willing to give anything on their side with raising taxes on the rich.

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by rashi

 Only around 50% of people in this country pay a Federal Income Tax, and the 1% hides their earnings in non-profit organizations. So taxing isn't the issue, it's a spending issue.

Exactly.  Stop spending billions on wars.  Stop dropping those hundred thousand bombs on villagers and all this global policing.  

It's going to take a lot more than just that though.  We would need to cut 30% from EVERY program just to balance the budget.  If we're serious, SS will be drastically cut. Medicare will be drastically cut and so will the military.  Even if we cut EVER program besides those three we still wouldn't balance.




cutting everything is drastic, and i agree the dent we put in the deficit with said financial responsibility will be hardly noticeable. if anything its something in the right direction.

in addition, there are some programs that shouldn't be cut in the first place. education above all cannot be cut. this country is trash when it comes to education. more and more people are hitting up remedial math for college. china produces about 100x more engineers than we do. want to create jobs? invest in infrastructure. we got bridges and tunnels needs rehab like theres no tomorrow. and depending on your city, roads suck *#*. nyc is like driving in a third world country (yes i know what thats like).

outsourcing is another major problem. this country lost its manufacturing to overseas jobs and its +%+!#*+ up the economy...we are a nation of number crunchers who use business analytics and sleazy business practices to make money off...well, money. sell this, package that, trade for w.e.....would apple's profit margin be as high if their foxconn was in the U.S? hell nah, but ill bet u that the number of jobs created would be

silicone valley alone (with exception to google since they have offices around the globe and are software oriented) could put a real dent in the unemployment rate. FACT.

iraq should've never happened. afghanistan should've never happened. in the past decade we took what clinton did and flushed it down the toilet, and racked up a deficit that is just sad

moreso, it instigated a new hatred and discrimination of muslims.

 

[cj863]

Couldn't agree more with the last few posts but realistically those points
just aren't going to happen in this nation. There has to be a medium and harebrained
republicans aren't going to let that happen, they'd rather let the country fail than
step off the imaginary high horse. This country is going down the ****ter fast because of so
many factors.

 

[impalaballa187]

Originally Posted by nocomment6

Originally Posted by MissDivaDoll

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

it's not the wealthy's job to pull this country out of the hole the poor put it in.
getting taxed 300k if you make 1mil is horse !**$

47 bn is a lot, but not enough obviously, but charging 30 percent?! I'd be outraged, that I should pay that amount towards the government if I mkae that kind of living from work...

Yo...  What is that joint from? I'm really dying right now. I was gonna contribute to the thread but I just can't stop laughing.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

really?.. you think it was "the poor" that put the US economy in its current state?

yeah poor people who bought houses when they couldn't pay their mortgage. and that horse gif had me dying too 

 perfect execution 
but if i made 1 mil but had to pay 30% to the government i would be heated and i know all you guys would too

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

yeah poor people who bought houses when they couldn't pay their mortgage. and that horse gif had me dying too 

 perfect execution 
but if i made 1 mil but had to pay 30% to the government i would be heated and i know all you guys would too

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

I agree that the poor are many times a victim to their circumstance but take for example those payday loan places they are preying on the poor but you also cannot become a victim if you dont use them.

This country has a problem with personal responsibility. IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

yeah poor people who bought houses when they couldn't pay their mortgage. and that horse gif had me dying too 

 perfect execution 
but if i made 1 mil but had to pay 30% to the government i would be heated and i know all you guys would too

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Though I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with you, this is mainly the fault of credit institutions and investment banks. You can either get accepted or rejected for a loan. If you know someone can't pay you back because of their poor credit history and medicore annual salary, you wouldn't give them a loan now would you? Your decision to approve or decline makes [/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]ALL[/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] the difference.

Lenders USED to be very careful with who they gave loans to since mortgages take many decades to pay off. But all for the sake of profit and greed, it became a standard practice to give any and every one a mortgage because all of the responsibility would be passed off anyway. All of these mortgages were sold from lenders to Investment Banks. The IB's combined all of these mortgages (which were usually awful) to create CDO's which were sold to investors (after being lied to and told these CDO's were grade A).

So now these "home owners" who USED to pay to lenders were now paying money to investors worldwide. What happens when these people who shouldn't have been approved for a mortgage anyway can't afford to pay for it anymore?

2008[/color]

 

[missdivadoll]

Originally Posted by impalaballa187

Originally Posted by nocomment6

Originally Posted by MissDivaDoll

47 bn is a lot, but not enough obviously, but charging 30 percent?! I'd be outraged, that I should pay that amount towards the government if I mkae that kind of living from work...

Yo...  What is that joint from? I'm really dying right now. I was gonna contribute to the thread but I just can't stop laughing.

I believe it's from the film The Black Stallion.

 

[cap1229]

The execution of that gif was flawless.

 

[noskey]

It's from The Ring... or one of the remakes of a Japanese horror movie. Pretty sure it's the Ring.

And it's still hilarious

 

[Lee And His Sneaks]

Originally Posted by LaunchPadMcQuack

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

really?.. you think it was "the poor" that put the US economy in its current state?

yeah poor people who bought houses when they couldn't pay their mortgage. and that horse gif had me dying too 

 perfect execution 
but if i made 1 mil but had to pay 30% to the government i would be heated and i know all you guys would too

You mean to tell me that you think thats the reason why we are in debt as a nation because of "poor" people not being able to pay their mortgage. I swear i wish i could see you in person cause i wanna slap the %%%# outta you. some people can be %@*#%%! idiots with no sense sometimes. You know what i take that slapping comment back. I apologize. How about just doing more research and getting more info on our nations rising debt THEN come back into this thread with some more of your ideas i would really like to know if ur opinion changed

Rather than taking back the slapping comment, you should've just deleted it.  It's not like you were talking to him in person.

 

[presequel]

im in the 28% tax bracket already....and i dont make nearly a million dollars a year...smh.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Though I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with you, this is mainly the fault of credit institutions and investment banks. You can either get accepted or rejected for a loan. If you know someone can't pay you back because of their poor credit history and medicore annual salary, you wouldn't give them a loan now would you? Your decision to approve or decline makes [/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]ALL[/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] the difference.

Lenders USED to be very careful with who they gave loans to since mortgages take many decades to pay off. But all for the sake of profit and greed, it became a standard practice to give any and every one a mortgage because all of the responsibility would be passed off anyway. All of these mortgages were sold from lenders to Investment Banks. The IB's combined all of these mortgages (which were usually awful) to create CDO's which were sold to investors (after being lied to and told these CDO's were grade A).

So now these "home owners" who USED to pay to lenders were now paying money to investors worldwide. What happens when these people who shouldn't have been approved for a mortgage anyway can't afford to pay for it anymore?

2008[/color]

It's MUCH deeper than that.  Many lenders argued against making some of the risky loans originally.  But congress and the OCC demanded that they stop redlining certain communities and make money more easily available because home ownership is a "right". As a result, ARMS, Sub-prime, and Alt-A loans became the standard to get unqualified borrowers into homes.  If banks did not provide a certain percentage of their loans to certain neighborhoods they were threatened with having their charter taken away. After that happened, they needed an easier way to record all these new mortgages so they created MERS to streamline the recording process. Once the recording process was brought in house they started robo-signing those documents.  This is where much of the foreclosure mess has come into play because nobody knows quite who owns the loans.

Now... with that said, homeowners take some responsibility for signing up for loans they didn't understand. Lenders are responsible for issuing junk loans and lying during the recording process. And Congress is responsible for mandating that banks issue loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

 

[a55a5in11]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Though I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with you, this is mainly the fault of credit institutions and investment banks. You can either get accepted or rejected for a loan. If you know someone can't pay you back because of their poor credit history and medicore annual salary, you wouldn't give them a loan now would you? Your decision to approve or decline makes [/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]ALL[/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] the difference.

Lenders USED to be very careful with who they gave loans to since mortgages take many decades to pay off. But all for the sake of profit and greed, it became a standard practice to give any and every one a mortgage because all of the responsibility would be passed off anyway. All of these mortgages were sold from lenders to Investment Banks. The IB's combined all of these mortgages (which were usually awful) to create CDO's which were sold to investors (after being lied to and told these CDO's were grade A).

So now these "home owners" who USED to pay to lenders were now paying money to investors worldwide. What happens when these people who shouldn't have been approved for a mortgage anyway can't afford to pay for it anymore?

2008[/color]

at the end of the day though people still signed for loans they couldn't afford because they thought they could "flip" later on. they took a gamble and lost which is 100% their responsibility 

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Though I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with you, this is mainly the fault of credit institutions and investment banks. You can either get accepted or rejected for a loan. If you know someone can't pay you back because of their poor credit history and medicore annual salary, you wouldn't give them a loan now would you? Your decision to approve or decline makes [/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]ALL[/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] the difference.

Lenders USED to be very careful with who they gave loans to since mortgages take many decades to pay off. But all for the sake of profit and greed, it became a standard practice to give any and every one a mortgage because all of the responsibility would be passed off anyway. All of these mortgages were sold from lenders to Investment Banks. The IB's combined all of these mortgages (which were usually awful) to create CDO's which were sold to investors (after being lied to and told these CDO's were grade A).

So now these "home owners" who USED to pay to lenders were now paying money to investors worldwide. What happens when these people who shouldn't have been approved for a mortgage anyway can't afford to pay for it anymore?

2008[/color]

It's MUCH deeper than that.  Many lenders argued against making some of the risky loans originally.  But congress and the OCC demanded that they stop redlining certain communities and make money more easily available because home ownership is a "right". As a result, ARMS, Sub-prime, and Alt-A loans became the standard to get unqualified borrowers into homes.  If banks did not provide a certain percentage of their loans to certain neighborhoods they were threatened with having their charter taken away. After that happened, they needed an easier way to record all these new mortgages so they created MERS to streamline the recording process. Once the recording process was brought in house they started robo-signing those documents.  This is where much of the foreclosure mess has come into play because nobody knows quite who owns the loans.

Now... with that said, homeowners take some responsibility for signing up for loans they didn't understand. Lenders are responsible for issuing junk loans and lying during the recording process. And Congress is responsible for mandating that banks issue loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

Thanks just about to post something very similar

 

[shatterkneesinc]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

yes you have real estate and bankers giving out the loans at ridiculous UNFAIR interest rates
and knowing that they will default BUT chose to do it anyway because it makes the balance sheet loooook reallll good

yes blame the poor

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

I agree that the poor are many times a victim to their circumstance but take for example those payday loan places they are preying on the poor but you also cannot become a victim if you dont use them.

This country has a problem with personal responsibility. IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

so the question is if the interest rates are reasonable, fair,and  if homes are priced what they are worth,  could the "poor" family be able to afford it?
and lets not forget that people with good credit rating got screwed over as well, in fact they got screwed the most. and what about minorities? lets charge them higher interest because they are black hispanic or asian

you are suggesting to people that they shouldnt buy a house? its one of the most basic necessities in life, put a food on your table and a roof over your head. what proof do u have that people wanted to flip?

but ask urself this question? who got screwed here? and who are the ones we entrust and expect to perform their duties in "good faith"? 

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Though I totally understand what you're saying and I agree with you, this is mainly the fault of credit institutions and investment banks. You can either get accepted or rejected for a loan. If you know someone can't pay you back because of their poor credit history and medicore annual salary, you wouldn't give them a loan now would you? Your decision to approve or decline makes [/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]ALL[/color][color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] the difference.

Lenders USED to be very careful with who they gave loans to since mortgages take many decades to pay off. But all for the sake of profit and greed, it became a standard practice to give any and every one a mortgage because all of the responsibility would be passed off anyway. All of these mortgages were sold from lenders to Investment Banks. The IB's combined all of these mortgages (which were usually awful) to create CDO's which were sold to investors (after being lied to and told these CDO's were grade A).

So now these "home owners" who USED to pay to lenders were now paying money to investors worldwide. What happens when these people who shouldn't have been approved for a mortgage anyway can't afford to pay for it anymore?

2008[/color]

It's MUCH deeper than that.  Many lenders argued against making some of the risky loans originally.  But congress and the OCC demanded that they stop redlining certain communities and make money more easily available because home ownership is a "right". As a result, ARMS, Sub-prime, and Alt-A loans became the standard to get unqualified borrowers into homes.  If banks did not provide a certain percentage of their loans to certain neighborhoods they were threatened with having their charter taken away. After that happened, they needed an easier way to record all these new mortgages so they created MERS to streamline the recording process. Once the recording process was brought in house they started robo-signing those documents.  This is where much of the foreclosure mess has come into play because nobody knows quite who owns the loans.

Now... with that said, homeowners take some responsibility for signing up for loans they didn't understand. Lenders are responsible for issuing junk loans and lying during the recording process. And Congress is responsible for mandating that banks issue loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)] Everyone equally *!#%$# up then.[/color]

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

On the other hand maybe people shouldnt buy a house they couldnt afford. If you are making 30K a year you should know you cant afford a 300-400k home.

I agree that the poor are many times a victim to their circumstance but take for example those payday loan places they are preying on the poor but you also cannot become a victim if you dont use them.

This country has a problem with personal responsibility. IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

so the question is if the interest rates are reasonable, fair,and  if homes are priced what they are worth,  could the "poor" family be able to afford it?
and lets not forget that people with good credit rating got screwed over as well, in fact they got screwed the most. and what about minorities? lets charge them higher interest because they are black hispanic or asian

you are suggesting to people that they shouldnt buy a house? its one of the most basic necessities in life, put a food on your table and a roof over your head. what proof do u have that people wanted to flip?

but ask urself this question? who got screwed here? and who are the ones we entrust and expect to perform their duties in "good faith"? 

When did i ever say anything about flipping?
Also there is this new  idea of renting which would also put a roof over your head or possibly buying a house more reasonably in your price range.  If you make 30k even you should not be signing a mortgage for a 400k house maybe a house for 150k or rent until you save the necessary down payment etc. I just dont see why that is a hard concept to understand. Buying houses for nothing down with PMI etc is just foolish. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OWN A HOME!