Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bubba99
ParticipantIf you look at the posted chart (second post) from Shadowstats.com you will see three measures of un-employment. The headline number U(1), the number including discouraged workers U(6), and the most likely real number – calculated in the same manner it was before the Clinton era downward changes.
The plight of a discouraged worker can be viewed in a number of ways – just too lazy to look, or having sent out thousands of resumes for many months, just sees the futility in continuing to look.
Any way you cut it, I cannot believe that the labor force is shrinking faster than jobs are being lost.
ParticipantIf you look at the posted chart (second post) from Shadowstats.com you will see three measures of un-employment. The headline number U(1), the number including discouraged workers U(6), and the most likely real number – calculated in the same manner it was before the Clinton era downward changes.
The plight of a discouraged worker can be viewed in a number of ways – just too lazy to look, or having sent out thousands of resumes for many months, just sees the futility in continuing to look.
Any way you cut it, I cannot believe that the labor force is shrinking faster than jobs are being lost.
ParticipantThe whole question of tax “fairness” is dwarfed by the underlying arithmatic.
“that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent.”
from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfmGo ahead, tax the crap out of the middle quintile, they only make 13.6% of all the income – it makes little difference to the total tax collected. If you don’t tax the upper two quintiles, you miss 68% of all the taxible income.
And remember that most of us (under 100K/year) pay social secutity tax while the upper 2 quintiles do not on amounts above 100k.
ParticipantThe whole question of tax “fairness” is dwarfed by the underlying arithmatic.
“that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent.”
from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfmGo ahead, tax the crap out of the middle quintile, they only make 13.6% of all the income – it makes little difference to the total tax collected. If you don’t tax the upper two quintiles, you miss 68% of all the taxible income.
And remember that most of us (under 100K/year) pay social secutity tax while the upper 2 quintiles do not on amounts above 100k.
ParticipantThe whole question of tax “fairness” is dwarfed by the underlying arithmatic.
“that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent.”
from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfmGo ahead, tax the crap out of the middle quintile, they only make 13.6% of all the income – it makes little difference to the total tax collected. If you don’t tax the upper two quintiles, you miss 68% of all the taxible income.
And remember that most of us (under 100K/year) pay social secutity tax while the upper 2 quintiles do not on amounts above 100k.
ParticipantThe whole question of tax “fairness” is dwarfed by the underlying arithmatic.
“that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent.”
from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfmGo ahead, tax the crap out of the middle quintile, they only make 13.6% of all the income – it makes little difference to the total tax collected. If you don’t tax the upper two quintiles, you miss 68% of all the taxible income.
And remember that most of us (under 100K/year) pay social secutity tax while the upper 2 quintiles do not on amounts above 100k.
ParticipantThe whole question of tax “fairness” is dwarfed by the underlying arithmatic.
“that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent.”
from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfmGo ahead, tax the crap out of the middle quintile, they only make 13.6% of all the income – it makes little difference to the total tax collected. If you don’t tax the upper two quintiles, you miss 68% of all the taxible income.
And remember that most of us (under 100K/year) pay social secutity tax while the upper 2 quintiles do not on amounts above 100k.
ParticipantThe loan is not recourse, but that will not stop collection agencies from trying to collect, nor prevent “bad” marks on credit history.
Non-recourse only means that there is not a tax bill, and no legal remedy for the lender to collect. But the debt is not forgiven.
ParticipantThe loan is not recourse, but that will not stop collection agencies from trying to collect, nor prevent “bad” marks on credit history.
Non-recourse only means that there is not a tax bill, and no legal remedy for the lender to collect. But the debt is not forgiven.
ParticipantThe loan is not recourse, but that will not stop collection agencies from trying to collect, nor prevent “bad” marks on credit history.
Non-recourse only means that there is not a tax bill, and no legal remedy for the lender to collect. But the debt is not forgiven.
ParticipantThe loan is not recourse, but that will not stop collection agencies from trying to collect, nor prevent “bad” marks on credit history.
Non-recourse only means that there is not a tax bill, and no legal remedy for the lender to collect. But the debt is not forgiven.
ParticipantThe loan is not recourse, but that will not stop collection agencies from trying to collect, nor prevent “bad” marks on credit history.
Non-recourse only means that there is not a tax bill, and no legal remedy for the lender to collect. But the debt is not forgiven.
ParticipantI dont get it. How does writing off more pricipal benefit the bank?
Are they expecting that we the tax payer will bare the burden of the writedown?
Bubba
ParticipantI dont get it. How does writing off more pricipal benefit the bank?
Are they expecting that we the tax payer will bare the burden of the writedown?
Bubba
-
AuthorPosts
