Hey Libs...why do tax cuts for our most productive suck?

[Wry Catcher]

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

Many first time home buyers were told they could refinance before the payment is due, and actually get money back from the equity they would accrue.

You must know this to be true, so why lie by omission?

 

[Maxdeath]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

In fact what you are saying is, that it's not the con artists fault that people get duped but rather the fault of the victims of con artists that they get duped. And the 2008 bank crisis was a con. It was a legal pyramid scheme that wiped out billions of dollars and forced the government to spent tax's payers money to prevent a total collapse of the financial system. Rather then acknowledge that, I see people blaming the victims for it, while bank executives made, and continue to make millions in bonuses with little to no accountability when they screw everybody.

In fact what I was saying is that if you need to have someone hold your hand and walk you through the whole fiscal responsibility then you might be better off having a parent or adult guardian do it. Instead of assuming that everyone has your best intrests at heart. Really does not take an Einstein to realize that it is your responsibility to understand what you can afford and what you are signing.

 

[justinacolmena]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents

There is too much wheeling and dealing for this to be true. Money simply does not grow as fast as children multiply. If it did we would all be rich wealthy aristocrats. But then who would serve us for what we are too lazy to lift a finger for?

 

[Maxdeath]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

Learn how to do simple math so that you don't need a babysitter.

 

[Lewdog]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents

There is too much wheeling and dealing for this to be true. Money simply does not grow as fast as children multiply. If it did we would all be rich wealthy aristocrats. But then who would serve us for what we are too lazy to lift a finger for?

They pay other people to take care of their money and run their businesses. It is most definitely true.

 

[justinacolmena]

fiscal responsibility ... better off having a parent or adult guardian

You're talking shit to the wrong lady. That's cyanide in the coffee or a knife into the heart before you even wake up in the morning.

 

[rightwinger]

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a lie people want to believe.

Lenders were blinded by greed and the government looked the other way

 

[BrokeLoser]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

First they are not necessary in a strong economy
Second, we raised the deficit to pay for them
Third, the money is pulled from our economy

Why not demand less .GOV spending...doesn’t that make more sense?

 

[bripat9643]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

At a minimum, you can take your mortgage agreement to a real estate lawyer who can explain any problems with it.

 

[bripat9643]

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a lie people want to believe.

Lenders were blinded by greed and the government looked the other way

Greed made them give out mortgages to people who couldn't pay them? Why do you leftwing imbeciles always blame everything on greed?

 

[bripat9643]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Only about 25% of the wealth inherited their money. The ones who did typically fritter it all away by the time they die.

 

[Tax Man]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

The original reason for the non taxing of taxes was to prohibit tax on tax which is why we went to war with Briton.

 

[justinacolmena]

At a minimum, you can take your mortgage agreement to a real estate lawyer who can explain any problems with it.

There's no mortgage agreement. That slick realtor-lawyer has you pegged for an easy mark and he'll fleece you for everything you own.

 

[deanrd]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

Eventually somebody has to pay for something. Otherwise, we lose our roads, our sewers, our military, our schools, our..........well...........it's obvious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

First they are not necessary in a strong economy
Second, we raised the deficit to pay for them
Third, the money is pulled from our economy

Why not demand less .GOV spending...doesn’t that make more sense?

Sure, let's start by leading by example. First the members of Congress vote to cut their salary and benefits, and move on from there to the Defense budget.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

Only about 25% of the wealth inherited their money. The ones who did typically fritter it all away by the time they die.

Please post the link to your claim. Only about? LOL

 

[DGS49]

The purpose of a tax cut in these days of perpetual, massive deficits is to incentivize desired economic activity, whether it be selling capital assets and paying (lower) taxes on them, spending money to stimulate economic activity, or encourage investment or paying down debt.

As for tax cuts generally, Republicans tend to over - estimate the benefits, while Democrats refuse to acknowledge that tax changes affect behavior.

 

[dave p]

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

Social Action Linking Together (SALT)

Again, it's for straight and subservient wimmuns & chilluns only. Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, other people who are viciously hated and driven out of jobs, house, and home, need not apply. Probably be charged & convicted on the spot of a SEX OFFENSE for even darkening their doormat.

Condition of those bennies: offer sex for money.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[dave p]

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

Social Action Linking Together (SALT)

Again, it's for straight and subservient wimmuns & chilluns only. Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, other people who are viciously hated and driven out of jobs, house, and home, need not apply. Probably be charged & convicted on the spot of a SEX OFFENSE for even darkening their doormat.

Condition of those bennies: offer sex for money.

What the hell are you talking about?

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

And many others didn’t. What’s your point?

 

[Lewdog]

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

Social Action Linking Together (SALT)

Again, it's for straight and subservient wimmuns & chilluns only. Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, other people who are viciously hated and driven out of jobs, house, and home, need not apply. Probably be charged & convicted on the spot of a SEX OFFENSE for even darkening their doormat.

Condition of those bennies: offer sex for money.

What the hell are you talking about?

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.

And many others didn’t. What’s your point?

Pretty simple point. The OP assumes that the only people that some want to have higher taxes on that are rich, are those that work hard for their money and are more productive. That simply isn't true.