by MarkJames » Sun 09 Mar 2008, 12:52:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkJames', 'I') won't be getting a rebate, but I benefit from borrow & spend rebates since some of our customers will use them to help with the expenses of service, equipment installations, heating oil, kerosene and propane. Many of my tenants will use the rebates to catch up on utility bills, cable bills, phone bills and to help offset increasing rents and overall real inflation.
Since low income people are generally undisciplined at saving and investing, much of their income eventually ends up in the hands of the wealthy.
low income people have other basic needs to tend to 1st. Like food, shelter and clothing.
Many low income people pay little or no taxes, receive large tax credit refunds, live in subsidized housing and receive food stamps, food pantry donations, WIC, heat/energy/weatherization assistance, subsidized child care, free transportation, the list goes on.
Since most low income people aren't disciplined at saving and investing, they often blow their money on beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, pizzas, pot, junk food, soda, electronics, digital cable, high speed internet etc. When they get hard up for cash, they'll pawn or sell their stuff for pennies on the dollar.
by vision-master » Sun 09 Mar 2008, 12:55:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkJames', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkJames', 'I') won't be getting a rebate, but I benefit from borrow & spend rebates since some of our customers will use them to help with the expenses of service, equipment installations, heating oil, kerosene and propane. Many of my tenants will use the rebates to catch up on utility bills, cable bills, phone bills and to help offset increasing rents and overall real inflation.
Since low income people are generally undisciplined at saving and investing, much of their income eventually ends up in the hands of the wealthy.
low income people have other basic needs to tend to 1st. Like food, shelter and clothing.
Many low income people pay little or no taxes, receive large tax credit refunds, live in subsidized housing and receive food stamps, food pantry donations, WIC, heat/energy/weatherization assistance, subsidized child care, free transportation, the list goes on.
Since most low income people aren't disciplined at saving and investing, they often blow their money on beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, pizzas, pot, junk food, soda, electronics, digital cable, high speed internet etc. When they get hard up for cash, they'll pawn or sell their stuff for pennies on the dollar.
can't they have a little fun. I tell ya what, If all i had was $10 to my name, I'd go buy a 12 pack. I mean, WTF.

by phaster » Sun 09 Mar 2008, 15:44:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'S')ounds like you're a "spending evader" and guilty of "willful failure to spend." I think they can put you in jail for that these days - watch out.
trust me I do spend money, but I use "situational awareness" to make sure I do not spend more money than I have....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I') don't get a rebate either. I earn enough to qualify but I'm claimed as a dependent...fucking IRS...

It's not the IRS who makes tax laws, it congress!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'l')ike you need a rebate, eh. How about more of a rebate for the peeps that NEED help, huh. Ever thought about them?
You are correct, I do not need the rebate congress and the president are proposing, and you are incorrect about my point of view (I do consider the plight of the less well off), but my basic peeve is that the "rebate" reinforces unsustainable behavior.
The function of taxes IMHO are suppose to raise money for necessary and sustainable functions of a society, and are not suppose to be spent in an irresponsible way.
I don't have any formal training as an economist nor am I a politician, so unencumbered by the thought process here is the way I see things...
Over the last 100 or so years, real estate went up on average about 3% annually, but over the few years from say 2000 to 2005 there was an explosive growth in global real estate. I'm in california and there was double digit growth (on the order of 20%) in real estate prices for about 4 plus years. There was an article by Eric Janszen in harpers,
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
that has graphs that shows time vs $, and economic bubbles in the dot com boom or real estate boom are similar in that ya have a short period where there is explosive growth (which is un-sustainable), and eventually a reversion to the long term historic mean value.
Congress and the president in order to look like they are doing something the help out, IMHO are not looking at the big picture. An unsustainable system will eventually crash, its just a matter of how bad. My own back ground is in physics, and I look at the problem in terms of adding energy to an unbalanced system. Think about a un-balanced tire, it is possible to drive with an unbalanced tire a long time if ya drive slow, but if ya drive faster (which as analogous to adding energy or money) to the system, the tire will wear faster.
If your diving faster and a tire blows due to uneven ware, the basic rule of thumb is the faster you're going when a failure occurs in the tire, the worst off is the potential crash. Basically its another inverse square law, if ya double the speed the potental energy in a crash goes up as a square.
Another way I thought about the problem of congress and the president adding fiscal stimulus or changing the banking rules mid-stream, is something I've experenced while flying called PIO or "Pilot Induced Oscillation".
What happens in PIO is the plane does something unexpected, say a draft hits the plane on final, a surprised pilot tries to correct from the unexpected turn of events, but what too often happens is the pilot over corrects and this feedback loop grows ever larger over time with catastrophic results.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?num ... ision&cd=1
Read about Hernando de Soto an economist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_d ... (economist)
who basically came to the conclusion that the reason the US and other western nations prospered economically, while third world counties like Peru remained banana republics, is because of legal contract that enforced economic certainity. If congress and the president force banks to write down or change terms of "subprime loans" then in effect this would be akin or no different than a dictator in the banana republic telling a bank to change the terms of a contract for large multi-national corporation.
The reason I added the link to the national debt of now $9.4 plus, is because I'm looking at the general trend of debt growing ever larger, being a fiscal conservative IMHO the better management decision would be to pay down debt now rather than encourage more reckless consumer spending. The longer congress, the president and the American people put off directly addressing the problem of an unsustainable economy and letting the system crash, the harder the fall!