Jump to content
Posted 27 January 2009 - 04:02 AM
Posted 28 January 2009 - 11:17 AM
Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:52 PM
Edited by locally pwned, 28 January 2009 - 07:54 PM.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 09:12 AM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:34 PM
Edited by fuzzywuzzy6, 30 January 2009 - 02:39 PM.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 07:54 PM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 08:13 PM
Posted 31 January 2009 - 12:25 AM
Posted 31 January 2009 - 12:28 PM
Edited by fuzzywuzzy6, 31 January 2009 - 12:29 PM.
Posted 01 February 2009 - 03:03 AM
If its like the current $7500 housing tax credit all would have to be paid back (the current one is paid back at $500 per year). The one you mentioned is targeted at first time home buyers, in an attempt to stir the market, get them out of apartment complexes, and reduce rent rates, thus lowering the cost of living and freeing up consumer money. (At least thats the thought)
Senate Republicans are pushing up to a $15,000 tax credit for home buyers (I believe at least part of this has to be repaid in future tax years).
The gop senators also oppose $400 million in spending to treat and prevent STD's, also a large amount to prevent certain other communicable diseases.
The gop senators are suggesting that "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects be quick-tracked in a separate bill and that funds for infrastructure improvement in the stimulus package be increased. This is a major change in GOP policy, which since the era of Reagan, has wanted to leave infrastructure spending to local and state governments.
Some members of the GOP are suggesting that all creditworthy homeowners be allowed to refinance their mortgages to a rate of 4.5% or lower.
Posted 01 February 2009 - 10:31 AM
Posted 01 February 2009 - 12:37 PM
Americans don't pay much in taxes.
Posted 01 February 2009 - 04:20 PM
Posted 02 February 2009 - 06:48 AM
GTK, folks in the U.S. pay much less in taxes than do those in the U.K., in Europe, and in much of the world. Income tax in the U.K. used to go up to 95% of earned income, also in some of the Scandinavian countries. Our inheritance taxes are ridiculously low, and I am not sure whether the Bush administration succeeded in getting the inheritance tax cut entirely. Many people in the high tax level countries are quite happy, as they get excellent government-sponsored health care, much support socially and economically for families, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, we do have a lot of tax-expatriates, especially entertainers, living here in the U.S. to avoid the high tax rates in their native countries.
The tax system in the U.S. is very regressive, with the middle class and working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income in income tax than do the wealthy. The wealthy get better services from the government from top to bottom.
The way I look at it, Warren Buffett was right when he drafted his will to leave the bulk of his wealth to charities. He felt that his adult children would be better people for having to earn their wealth. They are successful and do not seem to be to put out by his decision.
Aside from small family farms, there is no necessity from a social standpoint to leave vast sums of wealth to one's descendants. One could leave quite a lot and still pay a fair share to the government. I think there is a fair argument that leaving huge estates causes a lot of social damage. Our inheritance taxes should allow for large gifts to genuine charities, a small fortune to descendants, and a good amount to the government.
The wealthy have been skating by on their influence for years. It is time that they pay their fair share, and that would be not nearly so high an amount as estates have to pay in other countries.
A certain amount of social mobility is necessary to maintain an open and democratic society. 95% of the U.S. wealth has been flowing upward for years. What is fair about that?
Posted 02 February 2009 - 12:27 PM
Edited by fuzzywuzzy6, 02 February 2009 - 12:27 PM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users