Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!

[JonKoch]

And taxing the rich more just means the government has more money to waste. The way to cut government waste is to not give them so much money to waste.

That's been going on under Ronnie, Dubya and CHEETO

 

[JonKoch]

Two different things. If you use your money to create a foundation, that is a legacy. How much money do you have to give a kid to ensure them a good living? I think it is $5 million now, is that not adequate or do they need at least a billion?

$15 MILLION PER PERSON $30 MILLION A COUPLE, Under Cheeto's big ugly bill, forever, unlike Dubya's puny $6 million

 

[JonKoch]

Glad you brought this up. We can use "payroll" as the metric. Do the rich receive more or less total "payroll" dollars than the middle and lower class?

Sorry dummy. that's NOT how it works

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update​

Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made many significant, but temporary, changes to the individual income tax code to lower tax rates, widen brackets, increase the standard deduction and child tax credit, and more.

taxfoundation.org

 

[JonKoch]

In that same vein, why should the taxpayers give any money to welfare and social programs. Those people have the same opportunities as anyone else. You talk out both sides of your mouth.

That's my opinion on Cheeto and Dubya's wars of choice

 

[JonKoch]

How does the son of a billionaire 'pay his way'?

He bankrupts 6 times, get's indicted 91 times,. is convicted of 34 felonies, found guilty of sexual assault and has 4 anchor babies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

• 1982 Shift: SEC Rule 10b-18 (nicknamed safe-harbor) allows companies to buy back shares without fears of being charged with market manipulation.

You can issue stock options to executives without buying back stock, moron.

That's why companies like to do it.

They write off the expense, and they don't have to spend any cash.

DURR

 

[JonKoch]

Having a policy argument is pre mature if you don't know (or communicate) what it is that you want.
So what do you want our tax and spend policy to accomplish?

How about stop running up the debt?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, sorry Cupcake, BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike, required 50% to meet affordability goals, AS A GOV'T SPONSORED ENTERPRISE, he allowed for a few years to COUNT SUBPRIMES, but changed the rule in 2000 as they had a much larger failure rate

IT WAS DUBYA WHO COUNTED SUBPRIMES AGAIN, IN 2004 AND PUSHED THOSE "AFFORDABILITY" GOALS UP TO 56%

TRY TO KEEP UP BUTTERCUP

Nah, sorry Cupcake, BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike, required 50% to meet affordability goals

Right, they had to buy 50% subprimes.

IT WAS DUBYA WHO COUNTED SUBPRIMES AGAIN, IN 2004 AND PUSHED THOSE "AFFORDABILITY" GOALS UP TO 56%

Right. 50% was fine, 56% was a disaster.

DURR

 

[JonKoch]

Okay, I think the same question arises. Why do other Americans deserve a person's property more than the owner's family? I mean, the family is still among the living, right?

US founders generally viewed inherited wealth with skepticism, fearing it would create an aristocracy and undermine equality, famously stating, “The Snowball will grow as it rolls” (John Adams). They favored meritocracy, with Jefferson advocating for taxes on wealth to reduce inequality and prevent the "perpetuation of wealth and power" in families.

• John Adams (1814): “As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. Accumulations of it will be made, the Snowball will grow as it rolls”. Adams feared a return to European-style class structures.

• Thomas Jefferson: Warned that without safeguards, the government would be corrupted, leading to the "perpetuation of wealth and power in individuals and their families". He supported the abolition of feudal inheritance laws (primogeniture) in Virginia to prevent the concentration of wealth.

• Gouverneur Morris: At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he argued that “Wealth tends to corrupt the mind & to nourish its love of power, and to stimulate it to oppression”.

• John Hancock: Represented the practical side of inherited wealth, inheriting a massive mercantile business, which he managed while noting "money some way or other goes very fast".

• Property Rights vs. Inheritance: Founders generally defended the right to acquire property, but some, like Jefferson, considered it necessary to prevent the excessive concentration of wealth that threatened a republic.

• Meritocracy: They generally preferred a "natural aristocracy" based on talent and virtue rather than an artificial one based on wealth

The Economic Principles of America’s Founders: Property Rights, Free Markets, and Sound Money

Abstract: Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often...

www.heritage.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

is convicted of 34 felonies

It was awful!

What could be worse than misdemeanors beyond the statute of limitations?

The nation barely survived.

What was the final punishment for those horrible acts? Must have been a lot. Right?

 

[JonKoch]

Sadly, many heirs stop working and live entirely from their inheritance. When it's gone they are often not fit to return to a working life. However, most use their inheritance as a generational legacy. My boss and his brother, both only in their sixties, have given their kids their inheritance already as they don't need it and want their kids to get a head start financially. Two of the kids, who are in their thirties, have already purchased homes, a great way to invest part of their inheritance.

And was allowed when the limit was $6 million per person, $12 million per family


Dementia Donnie upped it to $15 million each and indexed for inflation. Someone need more of a hand up than that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

US founders generally viewed inherited wealth with skepticism, fearing it would create an aristocracy and undermine equality, famously stating, “The Snowball will grow as it rolls” (John Adams). They favored meritocracy, with Jefferson advocating for taxes on wealth to reduce inequality and prevent the "perpetuation of wealth and power" in families.

• John Adams (1814): “As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. Accumulations of it will be made, the Snowball will grow as it rolls”. Adams feared a return to European-style class structures.

• Thomas Jefferson: Warned that without safeguards, the government would be corrupted, leading to the "perpetuation of wealth and power in individuals and their families". He supported the abolition of feudal inheritance laws (primogeniture) in Virginia to prevent the concentration of wealth.

• Gouverneur Morris: At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he argued that “Wealth tends to corrupt the mind & to nourish its love of power, and to stimulate it to oppression”.

• John Hancock: Represented the practical side of inherited wealth, inheriting a massive mercantile business, which he managed while noting "money some way or other goes very fast".

• Property Rights vs. Inheritance: Founders generally defended the right to acquire property, but some, like Jefferson, considered it necessary to prevent the excessive concentration of wealth that threatened a republic.

• Meritocracy: They generally preferred a "natural aristocracy" based on talent and virtue rather than an artificial one based on wealth

The Economic Principles of America’s Founders: Property Rights, Free Markets, and Sound Money

Abstract: Although there are many scholarly treatments of the Founders’ understanding of property and economics, few of them present an overview of the complete package of the principles and policies upon which they agreed. Even the fact that there was a consensus among the Founders is often...

www.heritage.org

Wasn't a problem for Jefferson, he died in massive debt.

 

[JonKoch]

You can issue stock options to executives without buying back stock, moron.

That's why companies like to do it.

They write off the expense, and they don't have to spend any cash.

DURR

Yes, the Reagan administration brought significant changes to the issuance of stock options to executives. The Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 revitalized executive compensation by restoring "qualified" stock options, renaming them Incentive Stock Options (ISOs), and taxing their profits at lower long-term capital gains rates.

 

[JonKoch]

Nah, sorry Cupcake, BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike, required 50% to meet affordability goals

Right, they had to buy 50% subprimes.

IT WAS DUBYA WHO COUNTED SUBPRIMES AGAIN, IN 2004 AND PUSHED THOSE "AFFORDABILITY" GOALS UP TO 56%

Right. 50% was fine, 56% was a disaster.

DURR

Nah, once more, subprimes were NOT allowed in 2000, Dubya changed that in 2004 to 56%


BUT NO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO UNDER BILL, THEY COULD, AND BARELY ANY WAS

 

[JonKoch]

Nah, sorry Cupcake, BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike, required 50% to meet affordability goals

Right, they had to buy 50% subprimes.

IT WAS DUBYA WHO COUNTED SUBPRIMES AGAIN, IN 2004 AND PUSHED THOSE "AFFORDABILITY" GOALS UP TO 56%

Right. 50% was fine, 56% was a disaster.

DURR

Only for Fannie/Freddie when Dubya forced it on them Cupcake


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Jul 2, 2014

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or...

• Dad2three
• Replies: 481
• Forum: Economy

• 

 

[JonKoch]

Nah, sorry Cupcake, BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike, required 50% to meet affordability goals

Right, they had to buy 50% subprimes.

IT WAS DUBYA WHO COUNTED SUBPRIMES AGAIN, IN 2004 AND PUSHED THOSE "AFFORDABILITY" GOALS UP TO 56%

Right. 50% was fine, 56% was a disaster.

DURR

In 2008, securitized subprime loans—bundled into Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and sold to investors—drove the financial crisis by enabling reckless lending through an "originate-to-distribute" model. Unsecuritized loans, held in bank portfolios, generally performed better because lenders maintained risk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the Reagan administration brought significant changes to the issuance of stock options to executives. The Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 revitalized executive compensation by restoring "qualified" stock options, renaming them Incentive Stock Options (ISOs), and taxing their profits at lower long-term capital gains rates.

Clinton turbocharged stock options, by making cash compensation over $1 million non-deductible.

renaming them Incentive Stock Options (ISOs), and taxing their profits at lower long-term capital gains rates.

ISOs are mostly for employees, not executives. Most executive stock options are NQSOs.
When NQSOs are exercised, the excess value is immediately taxable.

 

[JonKoch]

Clinton turbocharged stock options, by making cash compensation over $1 million non-deductible.

renaming them Incentive Stock Options (ISOs), and taxing their profits at lower long-term capital gains rates.

ISOs are mostly for employees, not executives. Most executive stock options are NQSOs.
When NQSOs are exercised, the excess value is immediately taxable.

Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are restricted exclusively to employees (including employee-directors and employee-officers) and cannot be granted to independent contractors, consultants, or non-employee directors. However, they are frequently used as a, "key employee" retention tool, often favoring top-level management over standard employees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, once more, subprimes were NOT allowed in 2000, Dubya changed that in 2004 to 56%


BUT NO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO UNDER BILL, THEY COULD, AND BARELY ANY WAS


View attachment 1242262

Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress as another GSE in 1970. Fannie and Freddie carried out their mission effectively until the early 1990s, and in the process established conservative lending standards for the mortgages they were willing to purchase, including elements such as downpayments of 10 to 20 percent, and minimum credit standards for borrowers.

The GSE Act, however, created a new “mission” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—a responsibility to support affordable housing—and authorized HUD to establish and administer what was in effect a mortgage quota system in which a certain percentage of all Fannie and Freddie mortgage purchases had to be loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers—defined as persons with income at or below the median income in a particular area—or to borrowers living in certain low-income communities. These AH goals put Fannie and Freddie into direct competition with the FHA, which was then and is today an agency within HUD that functions as the federal government’s principal subprime lender.

Over the next fifteen years, HUD consistently enhanced and enlarged the AH goals. In the GSE Act, Congress had initially specified that 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases meet the AH goals. This was increased to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. By 2008, the main LMI goal was 56 percent, and a special affordable subgoal had been added requiring that 27 percent of the loans acquired by the GSEs be made to borrowers who were at or below 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Table 10, page 71, shows that Fannie and Freddie met the goals in almost every year between 1996 and 2008.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uplo...m-the-majority-report_154941211677.pdf?x97961 (pg12)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2008, securitized subprime loans—bundled into Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and sold to investors—drove the financial crisis by enabling reckless lending through an "originate-to-distribute" model. Unsecuritized loans, held in bank portfolios, generally performed better because lenders maintained risk.



View attachment 1242263

The demand from Fannie and Freddie, forced by HUD and the demand from FHA, forced by HUD, required huge numbers of low-quality loans, to low quality borrowers, with low (or no) downpayments.

The commercial banks also had mandates to make low quality loans. Or buy securitized subprime paper.