Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2010 at 9:41 PM in reply to: Gone with the Globalization, that is the US Middle Class #585683
patb
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.
[/quote]
You said it ‘was’ an option, I was asking when? What changed it..[/quote]2005 bankruptcy ‘reform”
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.
[/quote]
You said it ‘was’ an option, I was asking when? What changed it..[/quote]2005 bankruptcy ‘reform”
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.
[/quote]
You said it ‘was’ an option, I was asking when? What changed it..[/quote]2005 bankruptcy ‘reform”
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.
[/quote]
You said it ‘was’ an option, I was asking when? What changed it..[/quote]2005 bankruptcy ‘reform”
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.
[/quote]
You said it ‘was’ an option, I was asking when? What changed it..[/quote]2005 bankruptcy ‘reform”
Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
[/quote]
Wildly incorrect.
US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.
In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.
Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.
as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
[/quote]
Wildly incorrect.
US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.
In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.
Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.
as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
[/quote]
Wildly incorrect.
US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.
In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.
Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.
as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
[/quote]
Wildly incorrect.
US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.
In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.
Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.
as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.Participant[quote=GH]I’m not so sure. If taxes were raised to 100% no one would “bother” to go to work and tax revenue would be $0.00
If taxes were reduced to 0% everyone would be pretty happy in the private sector for a while and taxes would be reduced to $0.00
[/quote]
Wildly incorrect.
US Marginal tax rates in the 1950’s were 90%, lots of people worked hard to make millions.
In the Nordic countries, top tax rates were over 90%, people still worked hard.
Soviet Russia effectively had 100% taxes and still people worked to get Grad degrees, med degrees,
become engineers, scientists…..high tax rates reduce social inequity and increase employment.
as you point out, you didn’t like doing overtime
witha 56% tax rate, that meant that people get hired to work second shift rather then you doing overtime.Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.[/quote]
you are describing single action and recourse options under state law.
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.[/quote]
you are describing single action and recourse options under state law.
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.[/quote]
you are describing single action and recourse options under state law.
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage.Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote patb]
i hate to tell you this but for almost a 100 years Cramdown was part of law.
[/quote]
I’d be curious as to where you get that ‘fact’. Part of the differentiation between secured and unsecured loans is that with secured loans, unless their is fraud.. the lender walks away from bk with the property and the borrower is free and clear of the loan.. whether or not the lender is ‘made whole'(only exemption that I know of on this is under homestead act). If it is unsecured, the lender can go after other assets, including garnishing bank accounts, tax returns and wages.There are some variants in some states, like New Mexico, where if the lender is not made whole, they can go after other assets (recourse vs nonrecourse). Of course, this may be ‘stayed’ under bk.. where the lender on the secured loan only gets the property and no more, even though they were not made whole.[/quote]
you are describing single action and recourse options under state law.
Cramdown was an option under chapter 11 to allow
individuals to force a rewrite of their mortgage. -
AuthorPosts
