Our taxes take most from the people who have the least.

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

colaguy wrote:
Similarly, if two people are applying for a $100K mortgage, the bank is going to calculate what % of income is used for the monthly payment. The person with the lower income will have a higher debt-to-income %, and the person with a higher income will have a lower debt-to-income %.

Wordslinger wrote:
 A middle class American buys a car.  When you compare the sales tax he pays to his total income, the percentage is enormously higher -- awesomely higher than what a millionaire pays.  

Seems the point you both miss would be people financing a loan beyond their means.  The exact reason we saw the default on loans in the housing bust.

If you don't have the money you don't get the loan.  The debt to income ratio is OVERLOOKED and that is the choice of the buyer.  They sign the loan document. And it's POOR judgement on the loan source.

Whine whine whine...people get what they ask for.  

These are not examples of a "class" of people being unfairly taxed or over taxed or disproportionately taxed.

That's simply untrue.  Total myth.  The economy didn't go bust in 2007/8 because poor people got loans they couldn't afford.   The economy sank because Wall Street was making money off failing loans they were packaging and selling.  And your friends on Wall Street, with the help of the new republican controlled congress, are pushing to remove any rules that might inhibit them from crashing the economy again.  It's the first proposed legislation the republicans brought forward.

However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates.  It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes.

Reality.

I disagree with you both. It was the lender, the mortgage companies, which were making the mortgages to anyone who could breathe.  Yes, we may all want that fabulous (and expensive) house, but that's why prudent lenders carefully look at the borrower to determine their creditworthiness, and keep us borrowers from biting off more than we can chew.  In the 2000s the lenders did not do this.  They made loans to people without verifying their income, consequently setting the borrower up to fail. And sure, it made it worse that the loans were bundled and sold off to wall street. Today, there are restrictions on lenders to make sure that the borrower is qualified. At a minimum they must confirm the borrower's ability to pay and limit the borrower's debt-to-income to a ceiling.

All of which is enlightening ... and completely irrelevant to the thread, which, once again, points out that poor people pay a greater portion of their income for state and local taxes than rich people do.  

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

colaguy wrote:
Similarly, if two people are applying for a $100K mortgage, the bank is going to calculate what % of income is used for the monthly payment. The person with the lower income will have a higher debt-to-income %, and the person with a higher income will have a lower debt-to-income %.

Wordslinger wrote:
 A middle class American buys a car.  When you compare the sales tax he pays to his total income, the percentage is enormously higher -- awesomely higher than what a millionaire pays.  

Seems the point you both miss would be people financing a loan beyond their means.  The exact reason we saw the default on loans in the housing bust.

If you don't have the money you don't get the loan.  The debt to income ratio is OVERLOOKED and that is the choice of the buyer.  They sign the loan document. And it's POOR judgement on the loan source.

Whine whine whine...people get what they ask for.  

These are not examples of a "class" of people being unfairly taxed or over taxed or disproportionately taxed.

That's simply untrue.  Total myth.  The economy didn't go bust in 2007/8 because poor people got loans they couldn't afford.   The economy sank because Wall Street was making money off failing loans they were packaging and selling.  And your friends on Wall Street, with the help of the new republican controlled congress, are pushing to remove any rules that might inhibit them from crashing the economy again.  It's the first proposed legislation the republicans brought forward.

However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates.  It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes.

Reality.

I disagree with you both. It was the lender, the mortgage companies, which were making the mortgages to anyone who could breathe.  Yes, we may all want that fabulous (and expensive) house, but that's why prudent lenders carefully look at the borrower to determine their creditworthiness, and keep us borrowers from biting off more than we can chew.  In the 2000s the lenders did not do this.  They made loans to people without verifying their income, consequently setting the borrower up to fail. And sure, it made it worse that the loans were bundled and sold off to wall street. Today, there are restrictions on lenders to make sure that the borrower is qualified. At a minimum they must confirm the borrower's ability to pay and limit the borrower's debt-to-income to a ceiling.

All of which is enlightening ... and completely irrelevant to the thread, which, once again, points out that poor people pay a greater portion of their income for state and local taxes than rich people do.  

I was responding to one of your (and shewrites) statements.

To your original post - why is this important to you?  Has there ever been a time when it wasn't this way? Was there a time when poor people didn't pay state and local taxes? Did they ever not have to pay sales, gas, or property taxes?  Was there ever a time when they got a reduced utility bill or a lower fee for their driver license? Honestly, I don't know the answer to these questions.  But if the answer to all of them is "no", then it has always been that the poor use a higher proportion of their income on taxes and fees than do the rich. It's all about arithmetic and percentages.

2seaoat wrote:Just return the tax rates to sensible rates in the 80s.  Please start with returning capital gains to 28%.......it is obscene what has been done with capital gains.   Progressive tax rates created the middle class, and the reagan tax cuts decimated the middle class and set the foundation for 17 trillion debt.  We need to pay our bills and take that burden off the middle class and return to Progressive tax rates......progressive can be a very very good word for the middle class.

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

colaguy wrote:
Similarly, if two people are applying for a $100K mortgage, the bank is going to calculate what % of income is used for the monthly payment. The person with the lower income will have a higher debt-to-income %, and the person with a higher income will have a lower debt-to-income %.

Wordslinger wrote:
 A middle class American buys a car.  When you compare the sales tax he pays to his total income, the percentage is enormously higher -- awesomely higher than what a millionaire pays.  

Seems the point you both miss would be people financing a loan beyond their means.  The exact reason we saw the default on loans in the housing bust.

If you don't have the money you don't get the loan.  The debt to income ratio is OVERLOOKED and that is the choice of the buyer.  They sign the loan document. And it's POOR judgement on the loan source.

Whine whine whine...people get what they ask for.  

These are not examples of a "class" of people being unfairly taxed or over taxed or disproportionately taxed.

That's simply untrue.  Total myth.  The economy didn't go bust in 2007/8 because poor people got loans they couldn't afford.   The economy sank because Wall Street was making money off failing loans they were packaging and selling.  And your friends on Wall Street, with the help of the new republican controlled congress, are pushing to remove any rules that might inhibit them from crashing the economy again.  It's the first proposed legislation the republicans brought forward.

However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates.  It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes.

Reality.

I disagree with you both. It was the lender, the mortgage companies, which were making the mortgages to anyone who could breathe.  Yes, we may all want that fabulous (and expensive) house, but that's why prudent lenders carefully look at the borrower to determine their creditworthiness, and keep us borrowers from biting off more than we can chew.  In the 2000s the lenders did not do this.  They made loans to people without verifying their income, consequently setting the borrower up to fail. And sure, it made it worse that the loans were bundled and sold off to wall street. Today, there are restrictions on lenders to make sure that the borrower is qualified. At a minimum they must confirm the borrower's ability to pay and limit the borrower's debt-to-income to a ceiling.

All of which is enlightening ... and completely irrelevant to the thread, which, once again, points out that poor people pay a greater portion of their income for state and local taxes than rich people do.  

I was responding to one of your (and shewrites) statements.

To your original post - why is this important to you?  Has there ever been a time when it wasn't this way? Was there a time when poor people didn't pay state and local taxes? Did they ever not have to pay sales, gas, or property taxes?  Was there ever a time when they got a reduced utility bill or a lower fee for their driver license? Honestly, I don't know the answer to these questions.  But if the answer to all of them is "no", then it has always been that the poor use a higher proportion of their income on taxes and fees than do the rich. It's all about arithmetic and percentages.

In a sense, you're right. Poor people have always had to pay sales taxes, etc.  The underlying issue, of course, is that tax rates for the 1% are obscenely low compared to those of the middle and lower class.  Obama's right on this one, the rich need to have higher tax rates to pay for cheaper education, higher minimum wages, etc.  After WWII, this country went through an awesome period of growth and prosperity as the rich were taxed 90% so veterans could buy homes and go to college on the GI Bill.

The current tax rate for the ultra wealthy is less than 30%.



“Soon all humane people would understand the need for a revolution from below, where those who worked and struggled and produced would be the ruling class.”

                                                            Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

colaguy wrote:
Similarly, if two people are applying for a $100K mortgage, the bank is going to calculate what % of income is used for the monthly payment. The person with the lower income will have a higher debt-to-income %, and the person with a higher income will have a lower debt-to-income %.

Wordslinger wrote:
 A middle class American buys a car.  When you compare the sales tax he pays to his total income, the percentage is enormously higher -- awesomely higher than what a millionaire pays.  

Seems the point you both miss would be people financing a loan beyond their means.  The exact reason we saw the default on loans in the housing bust.

If you don't have the money you don't get the loan.  The debt to income ratio is OVERLOOKED and that is the choice of the buyer.  They sign the loan document. And it's POOR judgement on the loan source.

Whine whine whine...people get what they ask for.  

These are not examples of a "class" of people being unfairly taxed or over taxed or disproportionately taxed.

That's simply untrue.  Total myth.  The economy didn't go bust in 2007/8 because poor people got loans they couldn't afford.   The economy sank because Wall Street was making money off failing loans they were packaging and selling.  And your friends on Wall Street, with the help of the new republican controlled congress, are pushing to remove any rules that might inhibit them from crashing the economy again.  It's the first proposed legislation the republicans brought forward.

However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates.  It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes.

Reality.

I disagree with you both. It was the lender, the mortgage companies, which were making the mortgages to anyone who could breathe.  Yes, we may all want that fabulous (and expensive) house, but that's why prudent lenders carefully look at the borrower to determine their creditworthiness, and keep us borrowers from biting off more than we can chew.  In the 2000s the lenders did not do this.  They made loans to people without verifying their income, consequently setting the borrower up to fail. And sure, it made it worse that the loans were bundled and sold off to wall street. Today, there are restrictions on lenders to make sure that the borrower is qualified. At a minimum they must confirm the borrower's ability to pay and limit the borrower's debt-to-income to a ceiling.

All of which is enlightening ... and completely irrelevant to the thread, which, once again, points out that poor people pay a greater portion of their income for state and local taxes than rich people do.  

I was responding to one of your (and shewrites) statements.

To your original post - why is this important to you?  Has there ever been a time when it wasn't this way? Was there a time when poor people didn't pay state and local taxes? Did they ever not have to pay sales, gas, or property taxes?  Was there ever a time when they got a reduced utility bill or a lower fee for their driver license? Honestly, I don't know the answer to these questions.  But if the answer to all of them is "no", then it has always been that the poor use a higher proportion of their income on taxes and fees than do the rich. It's all about arithmetic and percentages.

In a sense, you're right. Poor people have always had to pay sales taxes, etc.  The underlying issue, of course, is that tax rates for the 1% are obscenely low compared to those of the middle and lower class.  Obama's right on this one, the rich need to have higher tax rates to pay for cheaper education, higher minimum wages, etc.  After WWII, this country went through an awesome period of growth and prosperity as the rich were taxed 90% so veterans could buy homes and go to college on the GI Bill.

The current tax rate for the ultra wealthy is less than 30%.



“Soon all humane people would understand the need for a revolution from below, where those who worked and struggled and produced would be the ruling class.”

                                                            Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22

Your original post was about state and local taxes.  And here is a quote from one of your statements in the thread:

"However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates. It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes."

Now you are changing the subject to federal income taxes.  It is a fact that the majority of federal personal income taxes (roughly 70%) are paid by a minority of US taxpayers (roughly 10%). That's the wealthy who are funding most of the federal government.  So, there should be no argument that the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share."  

Is it your position that the wealthy, who are already paying most of the federal personal income taxes, should just be paying even more? Is that what this is all about?  

2seaoat wrote:You must have no idea idea as to how real value is derived.

Yep.....its called balance of trade.....what we get in return for what we sell......the rest is just your ad hoc complete lack of economic education......maybe high school economics, but you sure as heck never took a college course, or graduate course.....to be so wrong so often takes a level of economic ignorance which matches Mr. Markle.

Thank you President Obama for returning the dollar to the hallow grounds of AWESOME!

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

colaguy wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

colaguy wrote:
Similarly, if two people are applying for a $100K mortgage, the bank is going to calculate what % of income is used for the monthly payment. The person with the lower income will have a higher debt-to-income %, and the person with a higher income will have a lower debt-to-income %.

Wordslinger wrote:
 A middle class American buys a car.  When you compare the sales tax he pays to his total income, the percentage is enormously higher -- awesomely higher than what a millionaire pays.  

Seems the point you both miss would be people financing a loan beyond their means.  The exact reason we saw the default on loans in the housing bust.

If you don't have the money you don't get the loan.  The debt to income ratio is OVERLOOKED and that is the choice of the buyer.  They sign the loan document. And it's POOR judgement on the loan source.

Whine whine whine...people get what they ask for.  

These are not examples of a "class" of people being unfairly taxed or over taxed or disproportionately taxed.

That's simply untrue.  Total myth.  The economy didn't go bust in 2007/8 because poor people got loans they couldn't afford.   The economy sank because Wall Street was making money off failing loans they were packaging and selling.  And your friends on Wall Street, with the help of the new republican controlled congress, are pushing to remove any rules that might inhibit them from crashing the economy again.  It's the first proposed legislation the republicans brought forward.

However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates.  It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes.

Reality.

I disagree with you both. It was the lender, the mortgage companies, which were making the mortgages to anyone who could breathe.  Yes, we may all want that fabulous (and expensive) house, but that's why prudent lenders carefully look at the borrower to determine their creditworthiness, and keep us borrowers from biting off more than we can chew.  In the 2000s the lenders did not do this.  They made loans to people without verifying their income, consequently setting the borrower up to fail. And sure, it made it worse that the loans were bundled and sold off to wall street. Today, there are restrictions on lenders to make sure that the borrower is qualified. At a minimum they must confirm the borrower's ability to pay and limit the borrower's debt-to-income to a ceiling.

All of which is enlightening ... and completely irrelevant to the thread, which, once again, points out that poor people pay a greater portion of their income for state and local taxes than rich people do.  

I was responding to one of your (and shewrites) statements.

To your original post - why is this important to you?  Has there ever been a time when it wasn't this way? Was there a time when poor people didn't pay state and local taxes? Did they ever not have to pay sales, gas, or property taxes?  Was there ever a time when they got a reduced utility bill or a lower fee for their driver license? Honestly, I don't know the answer to these questions.  But if the answer to all of them is "no", then it has always been that the poor use a higher proportion of their income on taxes and fees than do the rich. It's all about arithmetic and percentages.

In a sense, you're right. Poor people have always had to pay sales taxes, etc.  The underlying issue, of course, is that tax rates for the 1% are obscenely low compared to those of the middle and lower class.  Obama's right on this one, the rich need to have higher tax rates to pay for cheaper education, higher minimum wages, etc.  After WWII, this country went through an awesome period of growth and prosperity as the rich were taxed 90% so veterans could buy homes and go to college on the GI Bill.

The current tax rate for the ultra wealthy is less than 30%.



“Soon all humane people would understand the need for a revolution from below, where those who worked and struggled and produced would be the ruling class.”

                                                            Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22

Your original post was about state and local taxes.  And here is a quote from one of your statements in the thread:

"However, the subject of this thread wasn't home loan application rates. It was to show how the middleclass and people living in poverty are paying much higher disproportionate amount of their total income for state and local taxes."

Now you are changing the subject to federal income taxes.  It is a fact that the majority of federal personal income taxes (roughly 70%) are paid by a minority of US taxpayers (roughly 10%). That's the wealthy who are funding most of the federal government.  So, there should be no argument that the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share."  

Is it your position that the wealthy, who are already paying most of the federal personal income taxes, should just be paying even more? Is that what this is all about?  

Read Seaoats comment about how Reagan's tax cutting destroyed the middle class. His suggestion that capital gains taxes be increased makes good sense.

You seem a staunch defender of the ultra wealthy.  What's your solution to sinking middle class spendable income?  We're all ears.