[Blake]

Originally Posted by scollins

Someone please define "income equality" to me, and how that will look in application.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by scollins

Ok, I've seen it come up a few times in his thread. Someone please define "income equality" to me, and how that will look in application.

Because it sure seems to me that they"income equality" idea in the protests are "the rich have too much, I don't have enough. So take from them and give it to me."

Equality in general, not just income. But let's start with the fat cats that make money off of money and only pay 15% in taxes while everyone else that makes money by actually doing work pays double that if not more.

[KingOfJericho]

Raise your hand if you're in favor of income equality...

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by m3inwaiting

My original statement was a bit tongue and cheek. I have done very well for myself and family. Could I buy a more expensive car? Sure. This car happened to have everything I wanted in a price range that falls within the discipline of my short and long term budget.

No matter how much I've made at different times in my life, I never stretched to buy something I couldn't comfortably afford.

I actually like the protests. Good to see people exercising their first amendment rights. Its better than sitting on the couch and doing nothing. I never supported the bank bailouts and auto bailouts. Does that make me the 99%? Hell the tea party started protesting the bailouts 3 years ago.

My good friend strongly supports the occupy movement. His biggest problem is that wall street doesn't "create or build anything" other than fictional financial products. I just finished working on a debt raise to finance a wind farm. I told him next time he flips on a switch and the lights turn on in his house he can send a thank-you note to the firm that help structure the deal.

Wallstreet did create trillions in toxic debt.

Inside the Meltdown

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by tag824

Equality in general, not just income. But let's start with the fat cats that make money off of money and only pay 15% in taxes while everyone else that makes money by actually doing work pays double that if not more.

Really?

CBO Data:

[carve]

Originally Posted by Jebus335

That is so far from the truth I don't even know where to start...

From wikipedia...

Fannie Mae was established to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.[6]

My proposition is that Fannie was created to buy higher risk loans- bad loans. Are you saying that the banks would give out the higher risk loans first, and then use the extra money provided by fannie to allow them to make less risky loans? Do you think banks are more likely to take higher risks with their own money, or with government money?

Of course, market manipulation like that never works to make housing more affordable because it creates an artificially high demand, raising house prices, which is exactly what happened in the bubble.

The same wiki says that Fannie invented the mortgage backed security in 1981. Furthermore...

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.


In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals

Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions

There you go- they are there to make bad loans.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by tag824

Equality in general, not just income. But let's start with the fat cats that make money off of money and only pay 15% in taxes while everyone else that makes money by actually doing work pays double that if not more.

you're talking about the qualified dividend tax rate.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Really?

CBO Data:

That's your argument? The tax system has always been this way, the more you make the more you pay. Does it need reform? I think so, but explain to me how you can make millions/billions off of money and only pay 15%? Doesn't follow your chart above now, does it.

[mact3333]

Originally Posted by tag824

Equality in general, not just income. But let's start with the fat cats that make money off of money and only pay 15% in taxes while everyone else that makes money by actually doing work pays double that if not more.

Only a small % of rich people pay only 15%...do you know why they pay 15%...that is the capital gains tax rate and not income tax rate...so people like Warren Buffet who live off of investments pay that rate...yes this rate should go up but not for the avg investor but for the ultra rich people who make their living off of investments and capital gains and dont have regular jobs.

So to say the ultra rich people pay 15% only is ludicrous...if you make a million a yr at a typical company, you are paying your natural tax rate which is alot higher than 15%.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by mact3333

Only a small % of rich people pay only 15%...do you know why they pay 15%...that is the capital gains tax rate and not income tax rate...so people like Warren Buffet who live off of investments pay that rate...yes this rate should go up but not for the avg investor but for the ultra rich people who make their living off of investments and capital gains and dont have regular jobs.

So to say the ultra rich people pay 15% only is ludicrous...if you make a million a yr at a typical company, you are paying your natural tax rate which is alot higher than 15%.

I never singled out any group of people, I just think the capital gains tax is bs. Why is the system tilted in favor of someone that makes money off of money vs. those that make money by actually working in the first place. Wouldn't you call this favoritism?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by tag824

That's your argument? The tax system has always been this way, the more you make the more you pay. Does it need reform? I think so, but explain to me how you can make millions/billions off of money and only pay 15%? Doesn't follow your chart above now, does it.

you completely missed the whole breakdown of that chart. it was about effective tax rate, not just the numbers in the tax brackets. and the tax rate you're talking about is the qualified dividend tax rate, which is profit share money paid off things like stocks. it has nothing to do with interest earning. it's strictly for investments.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by tag824

I never singled out any group of people, I just think the capital gains tax is bs. Why is the system tilted in favor of someone that makes money off of money vs. those that make money by actually working in the first place. Wouldn't you call this favoritism?

So raise the capital gains tax rate to 30% and see how the economy does...

[Tag]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

So raise the capital gains tax rate to 30% and see how the economy does...

No. Fix the broken tax system, get the $$$ and lobbyists out of politics, kick the bums out of office. That's a good start.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by mact3333

Only a small % of rich people pay only 15%...do you know why they pay 15%...that is the capital gains tax rate and not income tax rate...so people like Warren Buffet who live off of investments pay that rate...yes this rate should go up but not for the avg investor but for the ultra rich people who make their living off of investments and capital gains and dont have regular jobs.

all of my income comes from qualified dividends, i pay 15%, and i also pay quite a bit more money every year than most people pay to the IRS. why should it be raised? why should i pay exponentially more every year to support the government's social programs? usually, if you pay more for something it comes with a perk or benefit. i get no perk or 'thank you' from the government, i get the same services everyone else does and pay a hefty sum to do that. i'm sure i'll get roasted for this post by people of the other side, but i shouldn't have to empty my coffers every year to pay off the mistakes of this misguided government.

[Undertow]

Originally Posted by Blake

you completely missed the whole breakdown of that chart. it was about effective tax rate, not just the numbers in the tax brackets. and the tax rate you're talking about is the qualified dividend tax rate, which is profit share money paid off things like stocks. it has nothing to do with interest earning. it's strictly for investments.

Dividends are also double taxed. They are taxed at the corporate level and the individual level, hence the low rate. Cap gains are not taxed as ordinary income for several reasons. One, to account for the inherent risks of investment and two, to enable companies to raise cash through equity offerings. Raise cap gains to ordinary income tax rates and the incentive to invest in the equity market decreases. Companies have a harder time raising cash, become highly levered,etc..

So tax the hell out of cap gains. Go for it. Watch the IPO market turn to dust.

[mact3333]

Originally Posted by Blake

all of my income comes from qualified dividends, i pay 15%, and i also pay quite a bit more money every year than most people pay to the IRS. why should it be raised? why should i pay exponentially more every year to support the government's social programs? usually, if you pay more for something it comes with a perk or benefit. i get no perk or 'thank you' from the government, i get the same services everyone else does and pay a hefty sum to do that. i'm sure i'll get roasted for this post by people of the other side, but i shouldn't have to empty my coffers every year to pay off the mistakes of this misguided government.

Believe me I am for lowering taxes for all as I lean Libertarian...but people that making a million a yr shouldnt be allowed to pay 15% when others paying 35%...that isnt right either...that 15% was meant for mom/pop paying taxes on normal investments on stocks and etc...people that live off of investments and making a million plus should pay more and thats coming from a tea baggin libertarian...I say this with the assumption we are keeping the current tax code...but if we overhaul it, then I want lower taxes for everyone...even you have to admit, most people with regular jobs are not living off of investments and dont have this loophole/advantage you have...this loophole exists because there are many ultra rich people who do live off investments only and dont have regular jobs, you are riding their coat tails.

Although I dont trust that Federal Reserve badge carrying Herman Cain, I do like his 9/9/9 plan cause we do need to simplify the tax code and overhaul it...I like Ron Paul quite abit but he is marginalized and stereotyped by the media as a crazy person so he doesnt have much of a chance which is a shame...but when I listen to Newt Gingrich, he actually makes alot of sense...I am very surprised I like Newt cause I used to lean left awhile ago but after 100 hrs of research I have learned the leftist way is not much different than morphed repubs who are the same and serve their banking masters...the libertarians are the old repub conservatives now.

[Jebus335]

Originally Posted by carve

From wikipedia...



My proposition is that Fannie was created to buy higher risk loans- bad loans. Are you saying that the banks would give out the higher risk loans first, and then use the extra money provided by fannie to allow them to make less risky loans? Do you think banks are more likely to take higher risks with their own money, or with government money?

Of course, market manipulation like that never works to make housing more affordable because it creates an artificially high demand, raising house prices, which is exactly what happened in the bubble.

The same wiki says that Fannie invented the mortgage backed security in 1981. Furthermore...



There you go- they are there to make bad loans.

First, never quote Wikipedia as a source, it discredits your entire argument.

Second your original statement was, "Fannie and Freddie were created SPECIFICALLY to make bad, high-risk loans backed by the government." The fact is, they were created in 1938 by FDR's New Deal to provide liquidity to banks nation wide so that they could originate new loans. This all plays into our current fractional reserve banking model (which has it's own benefits, and follies). A key factor that led to the mortgage backed asset bubble was the rating agencies. You know the privately held companies that determine the "health" of assets, and now sovereign nations apparently. They were the ones giving near AAA ratings to subprime mortgage securities that were originated by Ameriquest, Countrywide, New Century, etc...

[carve]

First, never quote Wikipedia as a source, it discredits your entire argument.

This isn't a doctoral thesis- it's a BMW web forum. If there's a problem with the information go ahead and correct me. I provided far more and better sourced information that your post saying you couldn't begin to tell me how wrong I was. Turns out, I wasn't so wrong.

The fact is, they were created in 1938 by FDR's New Deal to provide liquidity to banks nation wide so that they could originate new loans

When the banks had reduced liquidity, what loans would the make first with what liquidity they had: the high risk ones or the low risk ones? Perhaps I did have a bit of hyperbole there, but can you at least agree that over the past 20 years it has been legislated to make riskier loans?

Regarding capital gains...if you have money invested in the economy, let it stay there and work. Tax it when it is no longer invested and withdrawn to spend.

[matthewk]

Originally Posted by mact3333

I am the 1%...but I fully support the 99% and have even before Occupy Wallstreet...you should see my posts on the politics/religion board...I am hated there...if I had to guess, I bet you are a general surgeon from Texas...you are in the 0.5%....

Not a surgeon, pharma side of the continuum, (chronics and oncology, disease strategy, not RPh). You hemonc or onc?

I like you support the 99%, but I have a big conflict over my percevied lack of accountability from that group as well. Again, it's just my perception and we all see things differently.

[matthewk]

Originally Posted by tag824

Who are these people that keep saying everyone is looking for a hand out? FFS all people want is equality, not favoritism. I never got any hand outs from anyone. I did the same as this guy holding the sign. My parents were not rich, nor were they able to save up anything for my college education. I went to public schools, worked 40 hr weeks while using that $$$ to pay for college and didn't become established until my mid 20's. I made it myself and was always too proud to accept any hand outs. I am the fucking 99% and proud of it.

The combination of luxury cars costing more than the average individual income and being in the 99% just baffles me. Alanis said it best, "Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?"

[matthewk]

Originally Posted by tag824

I never singled out any group of people, I just think the capital gains tax is bs. Why is the system tilted in favor of someone that makes money off of money vs. those that make money by actually working in the first place. Wouldn't you call this favoritism?

ugh... The "money" that these people are using to make "money" has already been taxed. A lower calital gains tax, encourages those with capital to risk it on investments and in return if their risk, generates reward then they are taxed at a lower rate.

This kind of thinking, not looking at the big picture of capital gains taxes, or any other facet of our economy as a whole is a big part of what's wrong. Sure tax the people that make money off of money so they can be just like the people that work in the first place. The result will be that people with capital (money) will just hang on to it rather than make risky investments (loans) to companies that will hire the people that you refer to as those who make money by working.

This isn't rocket science, if you didn't have someone with money and someone without money that needed to borrow it, and an incentive for the person who has money to risk it on a loan, the economy wouldn't work. Unless you want to start over (and I am talking at ground zero) with a completely new economy, nothing can change without complete meltdown. WE're a credit based economy, there's no excapting that.

[matthewk]

Originally Posted by Blake

all of my income comes from qualified dividends, i pay 15%, and i also pay quite a bit more money every year than most people pay to the IRS. why should it be raised? why should i pay exponentially more every year to support the government's social programs? usually, if you pay more for something it comes with a perk or benefit. i get no perk or 'thank you' from the government, i get the same services everyone else does and pay a hefty sum to do that. i'm sure i'll get roasted for this post by people of the other side, but i shouldn't have to empty my coffers every year to pay off the mistakes of this misguided government.