OT Imagine
 

What would to the economy if the govt returned 700 billion to the taxpayers.

regards
gary

They'd buy a bunch of stuff from China and the money would disappear from the US economy :(

On the other hand if it came with the stipulation that you could only buy stuff made in the USA, the domestic economy would flourish beyond belief and tons of jobs would be created

Would only disappear from the economy if that stuff was purchased directly from China, through Chinese distribution, and shipped...in China.


Didn't President Bush set up another $600 tax thing earlier this year? $600 an adult or something.

Let's see, 200,000,000 adults in the US X $600 is $120 Billion. Then families get extra for kids. I didn't see tons of jobs being created by it. I don't think giving me back several times more was not going to help me expand my business to "create tons more jobs."

There arent 200 million taxpayers, and they paid the money to the govt that they are giving away to someone else.

regards
gary

I agree, but there are probably 200 million adults.

I think tax cuts should go to those that pay taxes, which is a higher income bracket, but that's another thread.


Honestly, I want people in jail for this stupid thing that's happening. I want to know how my citizen given power to the government has led to Fanny and Freddie and those accounting practices and bonuses.

You want to know how?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD...2803B6&index=0

:)

yup! altho many are to blame, democrats were warned about giving the American dream to those that couldn't afford it!...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0

Forgive me for not providing a direct reference, but I heard the other day that the majority of the sub-prime loans facing default and foreclosure can be traced to fraud - primarily by the lending agents/brokers. In other words, they wrote loans to people who really did not qualify and sold them on the dream that they did.

I'm not saying that such borrowers are not to blame for their own situation there, but clearly the fault for the this debacle can be laid just about everywhere.

Another point.

If you "save" someone from defaulting on a mortage, you have perpetuated their situation.

By this I mean they will use many productive years to get back to a positive equity situation, and by that time you will start to face maintenance and repair issues that will prolong the day when they have any real equity in their "dream" home.

Maybe not so much of a dream as a real nightmare. Call it invoulentary servitude from a different perspective.

Far better to give those same people the opportunity to buy a much smaller home and improve it when they can afford to do so, without committing so much of their income to a residence, at the expense of retirement savings and other monthly costs, including maintenance.

regards
gary

Agreed.

We actually have one of those so called 'sub-prime' mortgages. But unlike so many who were led down the golden path of debt, we knew exactly what we were signing, and it saved our asses from a far worse credit situation. As such, we have made the changes that we needed to make to afford any adjustments, and if we ever find a buyer for the Mazda, we'll be into a fixed prime mortage in no time. I honestly don't have too much sympathy for folks who didn't do the math up front on what would be the worst it could get and if they could afford it. We did. We can. And we will have used the mortgage exactly the way it was intended to be used, as a short term solution to provide breathing room to fix what we already f'd up!

I say don't bail out anybody.

Thanks Snax.

When I got married 4-4-89 we had a 10.586% mortgage on a condo. The payoff on $56,000 was $180,000. We paid it off in 2 years 6 months. Neither of us was making more than 30k a year. We sold a car to pay off the last $5000 and bought a newer car. Traded a car payment for a house payment.

We were paying $1500 a month in interest when we got married. After the mortgage was paid off the interest payments were $75 per month.

After that I started rebuilding totals (cars) and got rid of the car payment in months.

The result was no interest payments to anyone. That happened in 1992. We moved to another house and sold the condo, took on another $40k in debt. Paid that off in 18 months, mostly with the interest we were saving. The 40k note was at 7%, instead of 10.586% of the previous note.

My father bought the house so we could assume a VA loan, that was valued at 10k at the time (the loan itself). After owning the second house for 6 years we sold it for 10k more than we paid for it. The real estate market here was flat for almost 15 years, we made no profit for the sale of the second house, the value went up 10K, but we made improvements that ate up half that increase.

The next step was to build a house, never did that kind of work in my life.
My youngest brother is a class B contractor. Without his help it would never have happened. It took 16 months and I didn't make a dime of income. I sold my auto repair shop and used the payments to survive.

We moved in this house in January 2001. My wifes parents had passed away the year before and left her some money. I told her to get out of the stock market, and put the funds in CDs which were paying about 7% then. She didn't listen to me. She finally sold the stocks the week after 9-11. It cost us 30K.

The housing market here went ballistic at this time. The new home was appreciating at a rate of $500 per week. 3.5 years later we sold it for $325,000 (cost without labor was $160k) to a couple and moved into the home we now live in today, which I also built in 16 months. That same house today, after the new owner spent $200,000 to build extensive additions, is assesed at $625,000.

The last house cost me $180k to build, it's current assesment is $319k. It would sell for $400 in the old market but today we would be lucky to get $325k for the same house.

We can only get 3.5% on our CDs now last year it was 5.12%, in 1990 it was 7%.

How many of you have made a loan application where the person processing your load has encouraged you to "embellish" the facts to either get you approved or lower your interest rate. It seems like such an innocent act, but the results are what we are facing today.

This did not start at the bottom, but it wasn't made a clear "policy" from the top. Instead it was done very quietly with no record of the acts involved. The people who signed on for these mortgages were sold that paper because they did not want to miss out on the real estate boom. Performance standards were the code of conduct, with no consideration of the long term human suffering involved.

This is the background for my original post. Without personal responsibility and individual integrity this Democracy will fail.

Moral to this long winded post, and the reason why I originally stated "give the 700 Billion to the taxpayers. One out of 3 people in this country actually file tax returns. They are the source of revenues for govt operations and they will be the ones who foot the bill. I agree with Snax completely, no bailout. On the other hand its important to understand that if we allow the financial markets to collapse the whole hosue of cards could fall. The system is based on trust and integrity. Greed is the poision pill that will destroy the system.

The total personal national wealth is estimated at 66 trillion dollars in the US. This figure represents the frugal lifestyles of people since the US became a country. Govt has spent 1/6th of the total national wealth as we speak. It affects the availablity of credit to everyone when you have to compete with the government for a loan. A government that does not have to balance its books each month the way all responsible individuals must do in order to survive.

regards
gary

Well said Gary.

Give the taxpayers $700B of their own money?

The Gov is obviously going to borrow to get that $700B. Giving it to anybody is effectively FORCING the taxpayers to take out a $700B loan. *I* dont want a share in a $700B loan. I didn't really want a share in the 'economic stimulus' loan either.

I would also point out that the wording of the 'bailout bill' is such that $700B isn't how much they're going to give away, it's how much AT ONE TIME they can give away. ;)

I hope that it doesn't end up being a bad sub-prime loan. :D

Senate porked it up, and I heard this AM recently that it's now $852 billion.

If there was ever a time to make a call to a representative...

It just passed the house. Sad day for America.

I couldn't agree more.

The govt is now 5 years behind in collections (at least) to expenditures.

I think the maximum income tax rate at one time was something like 94%.

Harry Truman retired from the white house on a $138 per month pension from his service in WW1.

He sold his memoirs for $600,000 after taxes and expenses he netted $40,000.

You may see that again before this govt is finished.

regards
gary

They're also taxing us indirectly. Every time you spend money you dont have (borrow it) you add more money to the economy, causing inflation. Inflation causes all of our money to be worth less... the amount less being about equal to the added money. ;) Lately, inflation (REAL inflation, not what they SAY our inflation is) has been through the ROOF. Wonder why gas is 3.50-4$/gallon? Look not at 'higher oil prices' but at lower valued DOLLARS.

Commune with hour based currency anyone? =\

I just got a chain email about this very topic... I'll copy/paste. Interesting.

Oh, just realized this only concerns the $85B bailout of AIG... translate these effects to correspond w/ the $700B

__________________________________________________ ____________
__________________________________________________ ____________
Please read, forward to all your friends, and forward to your representatives. If they really want to help the American people, here?s their answer. I'm against the $85 BILLION bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It" dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens, aged 18+.

Our population is about 301 million counting every man, woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. Now, divide 200 million, 18+ adults into $85 billon - that equals $425,000.00 each! Yes, my plan is to give that $425,000 to every adult as a "We Deserve It" dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let' s assume a tax rate of 30%. Every recipient would pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife would have $595,000.00!

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595, 000.00?
? Pay off your mortgage ? housing crisis solved
? Repay college loans ? what a great boost to new grads
? Put away money for college ? it'll really be there
? Save in a bank ? create money to loan to entrepreneurs
? Buy a new car ? create jobs
? Invest in the market ? capital drives growth
? Pay for your parent's medical insurance ? health care improves
? Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean ? or else

Remember this is for every adult U.S. Citizen, 18 and older (including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back) and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it! Instead of trickling out a puny $1,000 economic incentive.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U.S. Citizen!!

As for AIG ? liquidate it.
? Sell off its parts.
? Let American General go back to being American General.
? Sell off the real estate.
? Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

We deserve the money and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea, but can you imagine the coast-to-coast block party?!

How do you spell Economic Boom? W-e D-e-S-e-R-v-e I-t d-I-v-I-d-e-n-d!

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion "We Deserve It" dividend more than the geniuses at AIG or in Washington, D.C.

And remember, this plan only really costs $59.5 billion because $25.5 billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

I'm not sure why only adults would get money. What about the taxpaying non-adults? I had paid thousands in taxes before I ever turned 18, maybe tens of thousands. I probably worked harder then than I do now.

Didn't someone call out that math earlier in this thread, or was that in another thread about this topic? Anyway, that's probably the kind of math that got us into this mess!

85,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = 850/2 = $425, not $425,000...unless you're using long scale billions.

Why not just give them $297,500 (really, $297) tax-free? Why go to all the effort of passing it back and forth? Just to provide more work for accountants and the already error-prone IRS?

Wait, someone already did give the taxpayers $297...actually, many (most?) got twice that much.

Anyway, this kind of smoke-and-mirrors math should really raise some skepticism when you read it -- if it's only enough to cover the bad loan problem, how can it possibly be MORE when you pass it out to individuals? After all, the individuals with the bad loans will all be able to pay up those loans (covering everything the bailout is about), and they only represent a small fraction of the recipients.

Liquidate AIG and watch what happens to all those destroyed homes on the Gulf Coast.

Every billion spent equals about $8 per income tax return filed (about 138 million).

$700 billion divided by 138 million= $2400 per tax return filed.

10 trillion = 10,000 X 1 Billion= $80,000 of govt debt accrued per taxpayer.

About $32,000 per citizen

$128,000 for a family of 4

10 trillion could be paid by total confiscation of all the wealth of 10 million millionaires.

Then we would be left with the idiots spending another 400 billion we dont have every year.

regards
gary

very true: uninformed(or insatiable) consumers, corrupt gov't, greedy corps...

oh what a taggled web we weave on a great many things!

this could be THE best argument for the fair tax. you guys know i hate taxes, specifically raising them and/or creating new ones.

the fair tax would MAKE illegals, new foreign business owners, those paid under the table, and the rich w/ fancy lawers and accountants ACTUALLY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES! but, certainly all levels of gov't would fight for their fair share(all hands in one bucket).

Snax is correct when he says conservation is better than finding more of the same resource, in this case, credit. where would we be if everyone paid taxes and practiced conservation(especially gov't)?

of course, you could make the argument that families like mine de-stimulate the economy...we have no debt outside of a very small mortgage.

The only way to do this would be with a national sales tax. You can make all the money you want, but when you spend it you're paying tax. Personally, I say tax everything but clothing items under $100, food, and perscription drugs. If you buy food for your family its tax free. Buy medicine for your family's health care, that's tax free. Clothes (under $100), same thing. Want to go out and buy a new iPod? Pay the Nat'l tax. Simple, and everyone pays their fair share. No hiding income from the Gov't, because they will get theirs when you spend it.

-Jay

EDIT: I just reread this and figured I'd make this more clear. The nat'l sales tax will come with vast reductions in mountains of tax code, forms, and less people in the IRS to oversee it.

-Jay

how would the government return 700 billion to the taxpayers?

The government doesn't have 700 billions, its loaned money, the taxpayers would have to repay that plus interest. (oh wait, they will).

The same way they pay back all the borrowing they do from the social security fund. They replace the money with a worthless bond that the only way it could be paid is to raise taxes again.

-Jay

Um...(along with the bad math...what a hoot!) I may be out of turn asking this, but...why is this in the General Fuel Economy Discussion zone?

Oh, well...at least they passed the production tax credit along with this bill...those of us in renewable energy are OK for at least another year (yay!)

Man, we've really taken this OT. What were we originally talking about?

-Jay

:confused: When did "10 trillion" join the discussion?

We were originally talking about this:
Maybe a moderatore can move this thread to a more appropriate area.