Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Ken Mac]

It encourages people to take the easiest, best leverage (debt) that they will get in their whole life. No one loans money at <4% for investment purposes unless it is a home mortgage. It's a GOOD thing. Not a BAD thing.

Especially if you're a banker!

Sorry, debt is not a good thing. It can be a useful thing, depending on a person's specific goals, but overall holding a lot of debt is only good for the lender.

Additionally, it is optional. YOU don't have to participate if you don't want to. Don't fuck other people over for YOUR ideals.

There's nothing optional about the tax code. If you don't play the game, if you don't jump through the hoops the government creates, you'll pay more in taxes.

I guess you'll never invest in anything then. Because investing in anything requires debt.

How so? When I invested in URG back in Dec I did not take on debt, just moved money from one account to another?

And what, pray tell, is URG?

 

[dblack]

I guess you'll never invest in anything then. Because investing in anything requires debt.

??? Is this a typo? That's obviously not true.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="jc456, post: 23871461, member: 46512"]

48 hrs a week is a fucking joke partner. Been doing 6-10's for year and 1/2. Sometimes 7-10's. Your to fvcking dumb to be given a human name.

who said anything about 48 hours a week? 48 weeks was my comment. your anger blinded you for a moment poin...

BTW, the point was the welfare fk taking our money doesn't pay the same taxes we pay. None to the feds.

Bet you are all on board for corporate welfare though.

no such thing. but hey nice try.

Sure you are as long as the disadvantaged are getting something they may very well need you will cry and carry on like a baby. If you were human that is.

so give me the definition of your corporate welfare. Who gives them the money? which agency?[/QUOTE]

Aldo Raine yo, where'd you go? you haven't answer these two questions loser.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

anything bought on credit costs three times the price of the buy. So how many folks do you know buy homes with cash? Look at the percentage on the internet. I saw a site saying 23% of homes sold in january of 2017.

All-Cash Sales: 23 Percent of Residential Sales in January 2017

That's more than I expected. Our government has spent the better part of a century pushing debt culture. So, we have debt culture. Why do the hard work of saving money for a large purchase when the government rewards you for going into debt?

again, one is in debt without the government. I just showed you that. 77 percent worth of people.

??? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Do you?

the irony of that statement. you made this statement:

The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

People go into debt to purchase a home not for tax incentives. hly fk, can't even remember your own thought.

Huh?? You say that no one buys homes for cash, then you post a link showing that 23% of home buyers do. Now you're saying that people don't take out home mortgages because of the tax incentive. Obviously, the incentive encourages more people to take on home debt. That's the fucking point.

Are you on drugs again?

That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.

 

[Ken Mac]

I guess you'll never invest in anything then. Because investing in anything requires debt.

??? Is this a typo? That's obviously not true.

No, it's not true (just mostly as I'm about to prove). I'm just making a point. The world revolves around debt. Without debt, there is no liquidity. Without liquidity, there is no market. Without a market, assets are worth essentially zero.

 

[dblack]

That's more than I expected. Our government has spent the better part of a century pushing debt culture. So, we have debt culture. Why do the hard work of saving money for a large purchase when the government rewards you for going into debt?

again, one is in debt without the government. I just showed you that. 77 percent worth of people.

??? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Do you?

the irony of that statement. you made this statement:

The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

People go into debt to purchase a home not for tax incentives. hly fk, can't even remember your own thought.

Huh?? You say that no one buys homes for cash, then you post a link showing that 23% of home buyers do. Now you're saying that people don't take out home mortgages because of the tax incentive. Obviously, the incentive encourages more people to take on home debt. That's the fucking point.

Are you on drugs again?

That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.

Maybe. So what?

 

[Ken Mac]

I just want to clarify about my stand on debt. Debt is good. It provides liquidity. Having said that, I think personal debt is bad. Horrible unless it's an investment of some sort. The only exception to my rule is home ownership because you can't get that kind of leverage ANYWHERE. It's a freebee basically. Might as well take advantage of it if you can make good on the debt.

Debt for businesses is good. It provides capital for investment which improves productivity which in turn improves man's condition (standard of living as it were).

 

[jc456]

That's more than I expected. Our government has spent the better part of a century pushing debt culture. So, we have debt culture. Why do the hard work of saving money for a large purchase when the government rewards you for going into debt?

again, one is in debt without the government. I just showed you that. 77 percent worth of people.

??? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Do you?

the irony of that statement. you made this statement:

The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

People go into debt to purchase a home not for tax incentives. hly fk, can't even remember your own thought.

Huh?? You say that no one buys homes for cash, then you post a link showing that 23% of home buyers do. Now you're saying that people don't take out home mortgages because of the tax incentive. Obviously, the incentive encourages more people to take on home debt. That's the fucking point.

Are you on drugs again?

That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.

go to the link I provided, 6% were first time buyers.

 

[dblack]

I guess you'll never invest in anything then. Because investing in anything requires debt.

??? Is this a typo? That's obviously not true.

No, it's not true (just mostly as I'm about to prove). I'm just making a point. The world revolves around debt. Without debt, there is no liquidity. Without liquidity, there is no market. Without a market, assets are worth essentially zero.

So, are saying that most people who invest in the market take out loans for the purchase?? Going into debt to invest is risky, and not something we want to encourage. Arguably, it's not even investment - it's just speculating with someone else's money and hoping it works out. Bankers have spent generations inculcating people with the nonsense you're regurgitating, so I realize these are "popular" ideas. But it's all BS to bilk you of your wealth.

 

[jc456]

I just want to clarify about my stand on debt. Debt is good. It provides liquidity. Having said that, I think personal debt is bad. Horrible unless it's an investment of some sort. The only exception to my rule is home ownership because you can't get that kind of leverage ANYWHERE. It's a freebee basically. Might as well take advantage of it if you can make good on the debt.

Debt for businesses is good. It provides capital for investment which improves productivity which in turn improves man's condition (standard of living as it were).

well if school debt shouldn't have interest rates, why do homes? Rhetorical I know.

 

[Aldo Raine]

48 hrs a week is a fucking joke partner. Been doing 6-10's for year and 1/2. Sometimes 7-10's. Your to fvcking dumb to be given a human name.

who said anything about 48 hours a week? 48 weeks was my comment. your anger blinded you for a moment poin...

BTW, the point was the welfare fk taking our money doesn't pay the same taxes we pay. None to the feds.

Bet you are all on board for corporate welfare though.

no such thing. but hey nice try.

Sure you are as long as the disadvantaged are getting something they may very well need you will cry and carry on like a baby. If you were human that is.

so give me the definition of your corporate welfare. Who gives them the money? which agency?

You do when you believe that they shouldn't be taxed and get to keep all expenditures. You are the problem. I am saying cut their taxes by over 100 % with no expenditures and so many of you people have lost your mind. Try and keep up.

 

[Ken Mac]

I guess you'll never invest in anything then. Because investing in anything requires debt.

??? Is this a typo? That's obviously not true.

No, it's not true (just mostly as I'm about to prove). I'm just making a point. The world revolves around debt. Without debt, there is no liquidity. Without liquidity, there is no market. Without a market, assets are worth essentially zero.

So, are saying that most people who invest in the market take out loans for the purchase?? Going into debt to invest is risky, and not something we want to encourage. Arguably, it's not even investment - it's just speculating with someone else's money and hoping it works out. Bankers have spent generations inculcating people with the nonsense you're regurgitating, so I realize these are "popular" ideas. But it's all BS to bilk you of your wealth.

If you buy an equity in the market, you are buying ownership of such. 99% of all public equities have debt on their books. That means you are buying into ownership of an entity that has debt. You are buying that liability. That liability provides for capital investment - go back up a few posts and I filled in the rest of the story.

 

[jc456]

who said anything about 48 hours a week? 48 weeks was my comment. your anger blinded you for a moment poin...

BTW, the point was the welfare fk taking our money doesn't pay the same taxes we pay. None to the feds.

Bet you are all on board for corporate welfare though.

no such thing. but hey nice try.

Sure you are as long as the disadvantaged are getting something they may very well need you will cry and carry on like a baby. If you were human that is.

so give me the definition of your corporate welfare. Who gives them the money? which agency?

You do when you believe that they shouldn't be taxed and get to keep all expenditures. You are the problem. I am saying cut their taxes by over 100 % with no expenditures and so many of you people have lost your mind. Try and keep up.

huh? you said welfare, that isn't welfare. No matter how you think or in your opinion. IMO, you're a kook. Now, why shouldn't they keep their money exactly? why is it you feel you should have it? You do know that the buyer pays it if they did pay it. So it still comes from the people and not the corporation, and all you've done is cost americans jobs. again, you haven't a clue. but hey, thanks for trying.

Now one more you haven't answered, the definition of fair. where is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad.

How so? I made a very specific, and factual, point. The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

I'll ask you the same question. how so? you think people can afford homes without mortgages? LOL.

A mortgage ends up costing a family much more than buying a home for cash - so yeah, they could afford it. In the end it would be much cheaper to pay cash. But we have a government hell bent on pushing people into debt, so that's what happens.

Anyone wonder why the government wants to encourage debt?

They don't encourage debt, they encourage people to buy homes, and let them write-off their mortgage.

 

[jc456]

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad.

How so? I made a very specific, and factual, point. The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

I'll ask you the same question. how so? you think people can afford homes without mortgages? LOL.

A mortgage ends up costing a family much more than buying a home for cash - so yeah, they could afford it. In the end it would be much cheaper to pay cash. But we have a government hell bent on pushing people into debt, so that's what happens.

Anyone wonder why the government wants to encourage debt?

They don't encourage debt, they encourage people to buy homes, and let them write-off their mortgage.

without banks, there'd be no home, if no home, then no cities, no cities no police, no stores, no cars, no jobs, the human race would be Venezuala, Russia, China, India. you name the communists.

 

[dblack]

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad.

How so? I made a very specific, and factual, point. The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

I'll ask you the same question. how so? you think people can afford homes without mortgages? LOL.

A mortgage ends up costing a family much more than buying a home for cash - so yeah, they could afford it. In the end it would be much cheaper to pay cash. But we have a government hell bent on pushing people into debt, so that's what happens.

Anyone wonder why the government wants to encourage debt?

They don't encourage debt, they encourage people to buy homes, and let them write-off their mortgage.

It only encourages them to "buy" a home if they're taking out a mortgage. If the goal is more home ownership, the tax incentive would target all home owners - not just those who go into debt. But that's not the goal, the goal is to promote more debt - more business for lenders.

 

[Ken Mac]

who said anything about 48 hours a week? 48 weeks was my comment. your anger blinded you for a moment poin...

BTW, the point was the welfare fk taking our money doesn't pay the same taxes we pay. None to the feds.

Bet you are all on board for corporate welfare though.

no such thing. but hey nice try.

Sure you are as long as the disadvantaged are getting something they may very well need you will cry and carry on like a baby. If you were human that is.

so give me the definition of your corporate welfare. Who gives them the money? which agency?

You do when you believe that they shouldn't be taxed and get to keep all expenditures. You are the problem. I am saying cut their taxes by over 100 % with no expenditures and so many of you people have lost your mind. Try and keep up.

I don't even know what to make of this point. If there is even a point. I can't even translate what you've written to anything that could be understood. Please elaborate. Scratch that - Please clarify.

 

[jc456]

You're playing word salad.

How so? I made a very specific, and factual, point. The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

I'll ask you the same question. how so? you think people can afford homes without mortgages? LOL.

A mortgage ends up costing a family much more than buying a home for cash - so yeah, they could afford it. In the end it would be much cheaper to pay cash. But we have a government hell bent on pushing people into debt, so that's what happens.

Anyone wonder why the government wants to encourage debt?

They don't encourage debt, they encourage people to buy homes, and let them write-off their mortgage.

It only encourages them to "buy" a home if they're taking out a mortgage. If the goal is more home ownership, the tax incentive would target all home owners - not just those who go into debt. But that's not the goal, the goal is to promote more debt - more business for lenders.

where is anyone promoting more debt?

People buy homes on debt and then lease them to others and the others pay more to them then they owe and they make money. You're still confused idiot.

Someone starting a restaurant, borrow's money and invests to make money. Paying off the load as they go. Borrowing is how we do business in america. Politicians running for office ask for cash. Why? People are investing. The politician uses the office to pay back those investments, and it is my #uno problem with politicians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

again, one is in debt without the government. I just showed you that. 77 percent worth of people.

??? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Do you?

the irony of that statement. you made this statement:

The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

People go into debt to purchase a home not for tax incentives. hly fk, can't even remember your own thought.

Huh?? You say that no one buys homes for cash, then you post a link showing that 23% of home buyers do. Now you're saying that people don't take out home mortgages because of the tax incentive. Obviously, the incentive encourages more people to take on home debt. That's the fucking point.

Are you on drugs again?

That may be true, but that 23% are likely not middle-class people who saved every dollar they earned for 20 years or more. They are either wealthy, or their previous home was paid off and they simply used the money from the sale of that home for their next one.

Maybe. So what?

So what is the fact is that it's virtually impossible to buy a home for cash. Like I said, to accomplish that, you are either wealthy, or own a home and used that to pay for your next one. For middle-class folks, it's not feasible.

 

[Ken Mac]

You're playing word salad.

How so? I made a very specific, and factual, point. The home mortgage tax incentive encourages home debt, not home ownership.

I'll ask you the same question. how so? you think people can afford homes without mortgages? LOL.

A mortgage ends up costing a family much more than buying a home for cash - so yeah, they could afford it. In the end it would be much cheaper to pay cash. But we have a government hell bent on pushing people into debt, so that's what happens.

Anyone wonder why the government wants to encourage debt?

They don't encourage debt, they encourage people to buy homes, and let them write-off their mortgage.

It only encourages them to "buy" a home if they're taking out a mortgage. If the goal is more home ownership, the tax incentive would target all home owners - not just those who go into debt. But that's not the goal, the goal is to promote more debt - more business for lenders.

I don't even know where to start with this one. If a person could afford a house without a mortgage then I don't think the government gives two shits about whether or not that person owns a home. They are already doing very well. It's targeted at those whom don't have the means to buy a house outright.

What you've written is taking something and looking at it through its asshole and then saying the shit stinks, but not realizing that the food that went into them was nutritional.