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

[Ken Mac]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

 

[dblack]

??? 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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Lenders have plenty of business. The goal of most Americans until about ten years ago was to own a home. It's part of the American dream. So the government is just helping out in that endeavor. I think we can both agree that when you make a purchase like a home, you want to enjoy it, right? Well if you can possibly save enough money instead of taking a loan, you won't realize that enjoyment until you retire.

 

[dblack]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

No, it's because it takes a long time to save that amount of money. If it were easy, everybody would be paying cash for a house.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

Maybe you meant "largely cuz I won't take out a mortgage, even if the government is providing an incentive and i'm getting a loan with an awesome interest rate of <4%"

 

[Ken Mac]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

Let me get this right. The bad, bad "Bankers" whose product they sell is money, want to give you money so they can make money from you.

That's like saying, the bad, bad grocer whose product is a hamburger, want to give you a hamburger so they can make money from you.

Now it make sense. I just needed to rewrite it a little bit.

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

 

[jc456]

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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

why do you say that? What would change to make housing more affordable? You've stepped in something bubba.

 

[jc456]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

Let me get this right. The bad, bad "Bankers" whose product they sell is money, want to give you money so they can make money from you.

That's like saying, the bad, bad grocer whose product is a hamburger, want to give you a hamburger so they can make money from you.

Now it make sense. I just needed to rewrite it a little bit.

can't make it up. As I already posted, without it, there'd be nothing. A concept that is beyond their reach.

 

[jc456]

need one for the next and you need the next to get to the next, and so on and so on. The left don't get that concept. It is alien to them. No wonder they like illegals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

Let me get this right. The bad, bad "Bankers" whose product they sell is money, want to give you money so they can make money from you.

That's like saying, the bad, bad grocer whose product is a hamburger, want to give you a hamburger so they can make money from you.

Now it make sense. I just needed to rewrite it a little bit.

can't make it up. As I already posted, without it, there'd be nothing. A concept that is beyond their reach.

Exactly. Think of a country where most people could not afford a house of their own; what that would have done to the construction industry. Think of trying to raise a family on rent, and by the time you're old enough to pay cash for a house, the kids are long gone and it's just you and your wife, or in an unfortunate situation, you alone.

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

Nope, the only expenditure the corporations can deduct are wages. They already have a deduction from 21% to 10%. They can pay for upgrading their own systems and equipment to make more profits. Why should you and I?

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

Nope, the only expenditure the corporations can deduct are wages. They already have a deduction from 21% to 10%. They can pay for upgrading their own systems and equipment to make more profits. Why should you and I?

So they get to buy raw materials and then pay taxes on those raw materials when they sell their final product. Nice. What a great idea!

WE are already paying for their capital expenditures, and taxes too! It's in the price of the product. Step back about 100 feet and think about that one.

 

[dblack]

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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

why do you say that? What would change to make housing more affordable? You've stepped in something bubba.

Supply and demand - Wikipedia

 

[dblack]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

Let me get this right. The bad, bad "Bankers" whose product they sell is money, want to give you money so they can make money from you.

That's like saying, the bad, bad grocer whose product is a hamburger, want to give you a hamburger so they can make money from you.

Now it make sense. I just needed to rewrite it a little bit.

Loaning money isn't bad. Government arm-twisting to get people to borrow more than they should is bad.

 

[jc456]

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.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

Nope, the only expenditure the corporations can deduct are wages. They already have a deduction from 21% to 10%. They can pay for upgrading their own systems and equipment to make more profits. Why should you and I?

So they get to buy raw materials and then pay taxes on those raw materials when they sell their final product. Nice. What a great idea!

WE are already paying for their capital expenditures, and taxes too! It's in the price of the product. Step back about 100 feet and think about that one.

he can't, he doesn't know how, because he doesn't get it.

 

[jc456]

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.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

why do you say that? What would change to make housing more affordable? You've stepped in something bubba.

Supply and demand - Wikipedia

which part?

 

[jc456]

dBlack: It's all a conspiracy to keep the common many in debt so the rich can get more money. Bankers!

I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy. The bank lobby is pretty transparent about what they're after. We just have a lot of stupid voters who only think in terms of "free shit".

Let me get this right. The bad, bad "Bankers" whose product they sell is money, want to give you money so they can make money from you.

That's like saying, the bad, bad grocer whose product is a hamburger, want to give you a hamburger so they can make money from you.

Now it make sense. I just needed to rewrite it a little bit.

Loaning money isn't bad. Government arm-twisting to get people to borrow more than they should is bad.

who does that?