How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[Dragonlady]

An employer writes off every dollar that the employee costs then, including the payroll tax. You have to be willfully ignornant to think that employers are not writing off wages, employer payroll deductions and employee health care.

You poor little snowflake...you're so confused. The government does not reimburse a business for their labor costs. Having tax exemptions only allows them to keep more of their profits - it does not reimburse them for their labor costs.

When they have to pay an employee a $1 more an hour, the government doesn't send them a $1 for each hour for each employee...

You dolt. Have an intelligent person read this response to you and explain that it nowhere have I suggested corporations are paid by the government for their employees.

I never said the government re-imburses a company for their employees either. I said the employer deducts the wages and taxes paid to or on behalf of an employee from his/her/its income and doesn't pay corporate income taxes on that money. If your company earned $200,000 profit, but paid wages and benefits of $100,000 to employees, the company pays $35,000 in taxes on the net income, leaving the company with net profit of $65,000.

If the company makes $200,000 but pays it employees $110,000, the company only pays taxes of $31,500, leaving a net profit of $58,500. Even though the company paid out $10,000 more in wages, profits only declined by $6,500, because the company reduced it's tax bill by $3,500.

The $10,000 raise to the employees only cost the employer $6,500 because if not for the raise, the employer would have paid an additional $3,500 to the government for corporate income taxes.

Truly you people are dumb.

 

[Billo_Really]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

 

[Dragonlady]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

 

[danielpalos]

Just lousy management.

Another indicator of left-wing policy...

unlike right wing, "hostess" management, who hike their pay before asking Labor for a pay cut to help return the firm to profitability, and then blame Labor, when both unions don't go along with it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

Oh please, you mean to tell me in this age of communication, that somebody could lie about their financial status and get away with buying a home????

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

 

[LuckyDuck]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Soylent Green.

 

[BrokeLoser]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

"Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages."

Lenders were not "turning away" prime rate borrowers or conforming loans. Brokers and lenders were simply targeting subprime borrowers because that was the niche at the time due to the changes made to lending guidelines...And that's what businesses do...they follow consumer trends....And yes, minority borrowers represented a huge sector within the sub-prime boom...maybe the biggest.
Mortgage brokers, lenders and underwriters were originating and preparing the loans per guidelines. Borrowers were the ones signing the loan docs and agreeing to the terms of the loans. This is not rocket science...at the end of the day borrowers were the ones at fault for defaulting on loans and not adhering to the terms of the agreement.
Anything else is typical, spun "I'm always the victim" Liberal bullshit.

The next time you're in an IRS tax audit and caught cheating blame it on your tax preparer...The auditing agent will then show you your signature at the bottom of the return. Guess what that means?

 

[Mac1958]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

Oh please, you mean to tell me in this age of communication, that somebody could lie about their financial status and get away with buying a home????

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

=============

This just isn't true. The banks and mortgage companies, freed by relaxed regulations and virtually zero oversight, created the insane mortgages because they knew they'd be able to sell them by noon the next day. Either in shit CMO's that were somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies, or the even UGLIER shit CDO's that were ALSO somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies.

The only role the government played in that sham process is that it completely ignored the whole travesty. They weren't paying attention to the crap that was being put into those shit securities because the ratings agencies were selling AAA ratings.

125% loan to value! Stated income, just make something up, we don't verify! Use your dog's name on the application, we don't care!

Even Greenspan said he didn't understand those shit securities. But hey, real estate was booming, who cares! Greenspan had the authority to monitor and regulate these shit securities, and refused to. As a libertarian, he was convinced the market would self-correct and self-regulate. So much for THAT idea.
.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Work harder for less.

you should try working

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or you can regulate employers to do the right thing.

Who gets to dictate what the "right" thing is? You?

Where do you or anyone derive the power to tell employers what to do?

Ninety-five percent of employers will fuck you over any chance they get.

Why do we have illegal immigrants? Employers pay them.

Pay your employer for healthcare? It goes to his/her vacation fund.

I have a friend that owns an Olive Garden. An ice machine shorts out causing a fire closing his restaurant for a month. His business interruption insurance pay him AND his employees. He strong arms his employees to work at different restaurants that he owns and pockets their pay from insurance.

Employers/corporations are necessary evils that shouldn't be trusted.

you don't know much about insurance either

that type of insurance pays the owner and has nothing to do with employees

 

[Skull Pilot]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Tax income proportionally. And income level shouldn't dictate morals or laws. This Is a Democratic republic, our laws should reflect the wishes of all of us collectively.

really?

you think that a simple majority should be all that's needed to say rescind all the affirmative action laws? what about abortion laws?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am so disgusted with Americans right now...On one hand, exploit the poor poor Mexican illegals, and on the other hand pretend it's a humanist thing, but on the other hand ignore and pretend it's about immigration, but on the other hand be cynical about exploitation when it comes to politics or race. I have had it! Which is it? Exploitation is OK...remind me again, what's the alternative?

you do realize that anyone can quit any job at anytime if they feel like they are being exploited don't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you give an employee a $1.00 per hour raise, the employer writes all of the costs of that employee off as a business expense - his/her wages, health care costs, and the employer's contribution to SS, pension, EI and other withholding. The employer doesn't pay income tax on any of these costs.

The kind of absurd ignorance that could only come from a freaking Canadian.

Snowflake - a $1 per hour raise means an extra dollar out of the employers pocket for each and every hours. There is no "write off" on that cost. Then the employer pays an additional pay roll tax - which is obviously increased.

This is why the left has to mooch off of government. They could never run a business. They think when they pay an employee the government reimburses them...

people who don't understand taxes think a write off is some big fucking deal and that it saves the business owner a ton of money

people who actually pay taxes know that it's better to keep the money than spend it for a write off

for example If I have 100K at the end of the year in profit I can spend it and write off 100K and that maybe saves me 30000 in taxes or I can keep it an pay 30 Grand in taxes and have 70K

so do I spend 100K to save 30K in taxes and have nothing left or do I keep it pay 30 grand in taxes on it and have 70K left?

 

[Skull Pilot]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

no the fed just kept interest rates artificially low which just pumped more and more air into the real estate bubble

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

Oh please, you mean to tell me in this age of communication, that somebody could lie about their financial status and get away with buying a home????

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

=============

This just isn't true. The banks and mortgage companies, freed by relaxed regulations and virtually zero oversight, created the insane mortgages because they knew they'd be able to sell them by noon the next day. Either in shit CMO's that were somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies, or the even UGLIER shit CDO's that were ALSO somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies.

The only role the government played in that sham process is that it completely ignored the whole travesty. They weren't paying attention to the crap that was being put into those shit securities because the ratings agencies were selling AAA ratings.

125% loan to value! Stated income, just make something up, we don't verify! Use your dog's name on the application, we don't care!

Even Greenspan said he didn't understand those shit securities. But hey, real estate was booming, who cares! Greenspan had the authority to monitor and regulate these shit securities, and refused to. As a libertarian, he was convinced the market would self-correct and self-regulate. So much for THAT idea.
.

I agree with most of what you said. But banks do not make their own lending regulations for sub-prime loans--government does.

Banks made money for processing the loans, and off they went to the market where they were sold off as AAA securities rated by THE GOVERNMENT.

But all that aside, in order to understand how we got there, you have to go back to the beginning. What started all this was minority home ownership. Minorities were complaining that they couldn't get home loans because they didn't qualify. Using race as the complaint, politicians reacted as they always do when race is suggested.

The regulations kept getting weaker and weaker as the bubble kept growing.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

 

[Mac1958]

actually, that's exactly what they told them.

The government did not tell the banks to forgo their standard vetting process.

BTW, the majority of foreclosures were from private lenders.

Lenders were turning away conventional mortgages and requesting more sub-prime mortgages because they could make much higher fees and commissions on the high interest rate, high risk mortgages. People with no money down, and no jobs were encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford, and to lie on their application forms, to line the pockets of mortgage brokers and banks.

It was flat out greed by the big banks and brokerage houses and had absolutely nothing to do with lending to minorities in poor neighbourhoods. This was middle class white people buying two and three properties because mortgage brokers were glad-handing money around like it would never have to be paid back.

Oh please, you mean to tell me in this age of communication, that somebody could lie about their financial status and get away with buying a home????

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government. It was catered to minority and poor borrowers. Banks only made money on making the loans--not financing them. After the bank made the loans, they sold them off to the market. You couldn't sell off a loan unless it complied with F and F standards.

=============

This just isn't true. The banks and mortgage companies, freed by relaxed regulations and virtually zero oversight, created the insane mortgages because they knew they'd be able to sell them by noon the next day. Either in shit CMO's that were somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies, or the even UGLIER shit CDO's that were ALSO somehow rated AAA by the paid-off ratings agencies.

The only role the government played in that sham process is that it completely ignored the whole travesty. They weren't paying attention to the crap that was being put into those shit securities because the ratings agencies were selling AAA ratings.

125% loan to value! Stated income, just make something up, we don't verify! Use your dog's name on the application, we don't care!

Even Greenspan said he didn't understand those shit securities. But hey, real estate was booming, who cares! Greenspan had the authority to monitor and regulate these shit securities, and refused to. As a libertarian, he was convinced the market would self-correct and self-regulate. So much for THAT idea.
.

I agree with most of what you said. But banks do not make their own lending regulations for sub-prime loans--government does.

Banks made money for processing the loans, and off they went to the market where they were sold off as AAA securities rated by THE GOVERNMENT.

But all that aside, in order to understand how we got there, you have to go back to the beginning. What started all this was minority home ownership. Minorities were complaining that they couldn't get home loans because they didn't qualify. Using race as the complaint, politicians reacted as they always do when race is suggested.

The regulations kept getting weaker and weaker as the bubble kept growing.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

The government does not rate securities. Where did you get that? The ratings were given (sold, actually) by ratings agencies - Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's are the Big Three - and they are only used by the NRSRO, not owned by it. These companies gave AAA ratings to the crap securities that were most responsible for the Meltdown. That's just a fact.

You also said that "0% down and no credit check was instituted by the federal government." Do have any proof of that at all? The insane loans were created and marketed by the mortgage companies because they knew they could get rid of them the next day, and the government just ignored it.

I know you want to blame the Democrats, that's how partisan politics is, but cripes, what happened happened.
.

 

[P@triot]

Ninety-five percent of employers will fuck you over any chance they get.

100% of government will fuck you over any chance they get. The difference? I can choose not to do business or work for a corporation. A luxury we do not have when it comes to government.

 

[P@triot]

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Literally every business in the world cannot afford to pay a $15 minimum wage. You are clueless about basic economics and business.

 

[P@triot]

I am so disgusted with Americans right now...On one hand, exploit the poor poor Mexican illegals, and on the other hand pretend it's a humanist thing, but on the other hand ignore and pretend it's about immigration, but on the other hand be cynical about exploitation when it comes to politics or race. I have had it! Which is it? Exploitation is OK...remind me again, what's the alternative?

you do realize that anyone can quit any job at anytime if they feel like they are being exploited don't you?

Yes....but it is so much easier to play the victim.

 

[Moonglow]

Ninety-five percent of employers will fuck you over any chance they get.

100% of government will fuck you over any chance they get. The difference? I can choose not to do business or work for a corporation. A luxury we do not have when it comes to government.

• I believe you know what Jesus said about that..