| | #22 (permalink) | |
| marklevinshow.com Member Since: May 2002 Location: Missouri now, formerly Great Mills
Posts: 2,402
| Quote:
![]()
__________________ Medvedecic's Navy can't even get out of the harbor withour killing 1/2 the crew. Wollybugger | |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #23 (permalink) |
| marklevinshow.com Member Since: May 2002 Location: Missouri now, formerly Great Mills
Posts: 2,402
| We need the flippin Fairtax ![]() Everybody wins..... except for power hungry politicians and lobbyists
__________________ Medvedecic's Navy can't even get out of the harbor withour killing 1/2 the crew. Wollybugger |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #24 (permalink) |
| "Typical White Person" Member Since: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,398
| At this time, I think this story is appropriate.... A Restaurant Tax Story Every day, ten men went to a restaurant for dinner. They always ordered the same meals, and the bill for their food always came to exactly $100.00. They did this day after day, year after year, without variation. They did not divide the cost of the bill up equally among them, however. Since some of the men were more wealthy than others, they all agreed that an equal split would be unfair to those with less money. So, the men decided to pay the bill in precisely the same way we all pay our income taxes. The first four men paid nothing at all. They ate for free. The fifth man paid $1.00; the sixth paid $3.00; the seventh paid $7.00; the eighth paid $12.00; the ninth paid $18.00. And the tenth man, who was by far the richest of them, paid exactly $59.00, which was most of the $100.00 bill. He didn't mind, however, since he could afford to pay that amount. All was well. The ten men were happy with this arrangement, and they continued to eat at the restaurant every single day, enjoying their time together. Then one day... the owner of the restaurant threw them a curve. As they stood at the counter to pay their bill, he announced that he would reduce the cost of the meals for them. "Since you are all such great customers, and I am so appreciative of your business," he said, "I am going to reduce the total bill for your meals by $20.00. From now on, your ten dinners will cost you only $80.00." The men were pleased. But the situation did present a problem. How were they to divvy up the savings among them? Obviously, they could not simply credit $2.00 (one-tenth of the $20.00 savings) to each of the ten men, since that would mean that the first four men would actually be getting paid $2.00 to eat! No good. It only seemed fair that the first four men, who paid nothing to begin with, should likewise not get any of this $20.00 refund. But still, there was a problem. If they now divided the $20.00 savings among the remaining six men, that would be $3.33 per man. If that amount were subtracted from each man's payment, then the fifth man and sixth man, who had been paying $1.00 and $3.00 respectively, would then be getting paid to eat. That wouldn't work, either. No, the solution to this problem required some ingenuity. Just then, the restaurant owner, who had been listening to the discussion, interrupted. He offered a solution. He suggested that the fairest way to settle this dilemma would be to reduce each man's bill by the same proportion as he had been paying in the first place. The owner walked over to his calculator and figured out the amounts each man should pay. And so it was agreed. The fifth man, instead of paying $1.00, now paid nothing, just like the first four men had always done. The sixth man paid $2.00 (reduced from $3.00); the seventh paid $5.00 (reduced from $7.00); the eighth paid $9.00 (reduced from $12.00); the ninth paid $12.00 (reduced from $18.00). This left the tenth man with a bill of $52.00, instead of his previous bill of $59.00. The men paid their bill according to this arrangement, and they left the restaurant, satisfied. Outside the restaurant, however, the men began to compare their savings. The sixth man started complaining. "I only got one dollar out of the $20.00 savings. That's not much," he said. He pointed to the tenth man and declared, "And he got $7.00. What gives? That's not fair. He's rich. He doesn't need the money. Why did he get $7.00, when I only got $1.00?" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that the rich guy got seven times more than I did! I surely have a much greater need for money the he does." "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $7.00, when I got back only $2.00? That stinks! The wealthy get all the breaks. The rich just get richer." "Wait a minute!" yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. Not one stinking cent! The rich fellow, who drives here every day in a Lexus, got $7.00, and we all take public transit to this restaurant, and we got nothing at all. This system exploits the poor." With that, the men became angry. "And I lost everything," said one of the four. "My wife left me, my daughter is in the hospital, and I can't get work. I could sure use a break. Instead, I got not one lousy penny of the $20.00, and I have to watch this guy who's filthy rich take $7.00 of it! I won't stand for it!" The nine men surrounded the tenth. Their anger mounted as they continued to express their resentment at what they thought was a supreme injustice. Finally, they lost control of their senses. They beat up the tenth man. They left him bloody in the street, and they went home. The next day, the tenth man did not show up for their regular dinner. The nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something: they were $52.00 short! Needless to say, that was the last time those men ever ate at that restaurant. I wish I could say that these nine men learned a valuable lesson, that they came to understand the principle upon which a tax cut is based. But they didn't. They were too stupid to understand.
__________________ Out of no where, buttsecks, surprise! |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #25 (permalink) | |
| Strung Out Member Since: Feb 2001
Posts: 27,492
| I was asking... Quote:
__________________ "And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science." David Bellamy | |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #26 (permalink) | |
| Strung Out Member Since: Feb 2001
Posts: 27,492
| Ak... Quote:
People know how much their mortgage is. They know how much the car payment is. They know how much a movie or dinner out is. How many of us even know what we actually pay in taxes?
__________________ "And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science." David Bellamy | |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #27 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Member Since: Oct 2002 Location: St. Mary's County
Posts: 2,428
| Quote:
Americans For Fair Taxation:
__________________ http://www.thetechpoint.com/daystogo.htm | |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #28 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
| From a lender's perspective... ...Could you not look at a lender refinancing an adjustable rate mortgage as a method for them to cut losses? Let's say the borrower can't make payments, goes into foreclosure and the bank ends up with the house that it consequently can't sell for what it lent, so it takes a loss on the property. However, by refinancing it to 30 year fixed rate on the remaining balance and assuming the borrower can make those payments, wouldn't the lender be better served by maintaining their flow of income instead of selling an asset at a loss? In fact - this loan would actually cost the borrower more in the long term since they will be paying for longer (hence more interest - you could make it a 40 year mortgage if you wanted to really make them pay a lot of interest over the life of the loan). No government money involved, the private lender essentially cut their losses. The private market can solve this problem (it caused it after all). I'd say it is in their best interests to refinance it, without it even being mandated. Oh - if you have a fixed rate mortgage and the interest rates have gone down, by all means refinance your mortgage if you can. If you were wise enough to get a fixed rate mortgage the first time around I'd assume you would realize you can refinance it...lots of people have been doing this recently from what I hear. Quote:
| |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #29 (permalink) |
| Registered User Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
| ...actually I've been recently building a spreadsheet package that tries to show what happens to your take-home pay depending on how much you contribute to your retirement, capturing the changes to the taxes paid and what not... ...and let me tell you, figuring out the real tax rates for federal and state tax is a real bear when you are designing a spreadsheet that takes into account the number of exemptions people claim, because it is different for everyone, of course... Though I built it using another person's information and when I ran my personal numbers through it, the number it came up with for my take-home pay was off by like .5%, so that's not half bad I guess. |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
| | #30 (permalink) | |
| Strung Out Member Since: Feb 2001
Posts: 27,492
| Bingo... Quote:
Lenders are free, along with borrowers, to make a new contract whenever they both choose to do so. Without a finger being lifted by government. Lenders want the government to bail them out, as do borrowers. For instance, if left alone, a borrower might say "Well, this house is not worth $300,000 if I fail on the loan which I don't want to pay anymore even though I agreed to the terms. How about we do a new appraisal and split the difference so we split the loss yet I still keep my home and you still have a paying customer?" So, absent the government, a lender faces a choice; the borrower defaults and moves out and the lender is stuck with a house they had a $300,000 mortgage on that they may only be able to sell for, say, $250,000, a $50,000 loss. So, perhaps a new appraisal, with pressure on lenders and appraisers to come up with more realistic numbers, comes in at $250,000. So, the borrower and lender agree the new number, the new loan will be $275,000 at the new rates reflecting what the fed has pushed. The split the loss, nobody has to move and lose a home, the lender is still getting that monthly check. Think of how big a mess this may become with government intervention. If you are making your payment, ready to just ride out a down turn, why shouldn't you also get a break if I am getting help just because I supposedly can't make my payments?
__________________ "And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science." David Bellamy | |
| | [ Reply w/Quote ] |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |
| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link | Link to Us |
| Announcements
| Bookstore
| Chat
| Calendar
| Classifieds
| Community
|
| Contests & Surveys
| Culture
| Dating
| Dining
| Education
| Employment
| Entertainment
|
| Forums
| Free E-Mail
| Games
| Gear!
| Government
| Guestbook
| Health
| Marketplace
| Mortgage
| News
|
| Organizations
| Photos
| Postcard
| Real Estate
| Relocation
| Sports
| Survey
| Travel
| Wiki
| Weather
| Worship
|
Brought to you by Virtually Everything, Inc. ©1996-2008, All rights reserved.