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

[JonKoch]

Anyone who wants to succeed here can succeed. Most just want to do their 40 hours, punch out, hit the couch, and drink a beer (actually, that's not a bad life).

Data shows it is generally harder for Americans to achieve upward mobility, particularly from the bottom rungs, compared to peers in Western Europe and Canada.



Key Factors on Upward Mobility

• Mobility Rates: Upward mobility is lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.

• Class Limitations: Individuals born poor in the U.S. are more likely to stay poor than those born in Canada or European nations.
• 
  
• 
  
• Structural Challenges: High inequality and limited access to resources (education, healthcare) hinder advancement, leading to higher rates of downward mobility.

• International Comparisons: Studies indicate that the "American Dream" of moving up is statistically more attainable in countries like Canada and several in Western Europe.

The 'American Dream' of upward mobility is broken. Look at the numbers | Mark R Rank and Lawrence M Eppard

The US has far less mobility and equality of opportunity today than almost the entire European Union

www.theguardian.com

 

[JonKoch]

So you can't read a graph?

You can't understand what 50% means?

What's 50% mean under BJ Bill when he had good performing loans, it wasn't until Dubya CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS SUBPRIME BUBBLE THAT BAD LOANS WERE MADE?



You know as the chart show's, 2004-2007? lol

 

[leftwinger]

Yep, Ronnie, Dubya and Cheeto have done it

Two biggest crashes = 08' Housing (Congress, *** FRANK etc.) then China Flu (with DEMs) then Election Fraud all DEEP State. Now %1T fraud to clean out. You + dirty media, you own it 95%.

 

[JonKoch]

Just read the first one and that was enough to tell me that it is has nothing to do with why the rich won't flee [certainly not 12 reasons], in fact it does nothing at all to address the issue of fleeing, it was just a non starter with an intentional euro-socialist myopic view of why taxes should be raised on the rich instead of lowered on the folks who they claim are being hurt by a tax myth..here it is

in admitting the earners should not be paying 44% to the wealthy's 21% is in fact exposing that taxes are the problem not the solution, why not instead of increasing the rate of the wealthy they offer to just cut the rate of taxes for the earners back to 21%, even the earners would find that to be more palatable...perhaps writing to the mp's for that would then set things straight and make every one outside of the elites happy...the article/findings is/are the myth here

WHAT BS. From 1945-1980 the richest 1% received 8%-10% of ALL US income, they TOOK 26% by 2024 AND PAID EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ABOUT 40% OF THE EFFECTIVE RATES THAT SHARE OF THE PIE PAID 1945-1980

The richest of the rich paid 60%-70% EFFECTIVE tax rates 1945-1980, today less than 20%, again on a much smaller share of the pie!!!!

 

[JonKoch]

By way of comparison, Fannie and Freddie loans originated over the same period

Fannie and Freddie don't originate loans, moron.

How much subprime paper did Fannie, Freddie and the FHA hold by 2008?

HEY DUMMY, LEARN TO READ


By way of comparison, Fannie and Freddie loans originated over the same period have defaulted at a rate of only 5.9 percent.

Doesn't say they loaned out the money, but the loans ORIGINATED OVER THE SAME PERIOD (THE ONES F/F BOUGHT YOU KNOW?)

 

[JonKoch]

By way of comparison, Fannie and Freddie loans originated over the same period

Fannie and Freddie don't originate loans, moron.

How much subprime paper did Fannie, Freddie and the FHA hold by 2008?

You want the REAL numbers or the ones CREATED by Peter Wallison and Ed Pinto Cupcake?

 

[JonKoch]

Don't forget, Dubya changed Clinton's rule that low quality WOULD NOT COUNT, IN 2004

Don't forget, all subprime mortgages are low quality.

....But by 2004 (DUBYA), when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

Ummmm......going from Clinton's 50% in 2000 to 52% in 2005 doesn't look like evidence for your tenfold claim.

Sure, I guess going from 50% to 56% wouldn't be bad but Dubya ALSO allowed them to count loans without requiring the loans even be able to be paid back, UNLIKE CLINTON 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.

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]

Don't forget, Dubya changed Clinton's rule that low quality WOULD NOT COUNT, IN 2004

Don't forget, all subprime mortgages are low quality.

....But by 2004 (DUBYA), when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

Ummmm......going from Clinton's 50% in 2000 to 52% in 2005 doesn't look like evidence for your tenfold claim.

NAH ACTUALLY NOT ALL SUBPRIMES WERE LOW QUA;ITY CUPCAKE

Based on research into mortgage lending between 2004 and 2008, a significant portion of subprime borrowers actually possessed credit characteristics that would have traditionally qualified them for prime loans.

• Borrowers with Prime Scores: Studies have indicated that around 60% to 75% of subprime borrowers during the 2004–2008 boom period had credit scores (FICO) of 620 or higher, which is generally the threshold for prime or "near-prime" (Alt-A) loans.

• The "Missed" Opportunity: Many of these individuals were pushed into high-interest subprime loans despite having high credit scores, often driven by the rapid growth of non-traditional loan products (like 2- or 3-year hybrid ARMs) and aggressive marketing.

• Borrowers of Color: Research indicated that black and Latino borrowers with good credit scores (660 or higher) were up to three times more likely to be given higher-rate subprime loans than white borrowers with similar scores.

WEIRD RIGHT? Oh yeah, Dubya had 1% GROWTH 2001-2007 WITHOUT PEOPLE USING THEIR HOMES AS ATM'S, WHICH IS WHY US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED IN THE 7 YEARS!

 

[JonKoch]

Wow, your libtard math is weaker than the usual libtard math.

GSE-backed loans (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) performed significantly better than privately securitized loans, with default rates that were two to six times lower (or 200%–600% better) in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. While critics often blamed GSEs for the crisis, analysis shows that GSE underwriting standards remained more stringent than those in the private label securities market.
Moreover, in the years leading up to the crisis, the GSE share of the mortgage market dropped significantly, limiting their ability to lead the market

5 Features of Successful Housing Finance Reform

A reformed housing finance system should prioritize people at all income levels, including renters, and support liquidity and affordability across the mortgage market.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[JonKoch]

His 1993 tax bill was so awesome that the Dems lost 8 Senate seats and 54 House seats in 1994.

Yeah, who knew American's wouldn't want to actually fund Gov't like the democratic bill did,

 

[JonKoch]

However the bottom 10% of earners have an effective tax rate of 44%, which is more than twice as high as those in the top 0.01% (21%). We believe this is unfair. A billionaire should never pay a lower percentage of income tax than the secretary or cleaner in their office.

44%? Wow!
How do the poor manage to pay 44% (in the UK)?

Want a response, tell me WHERE it shows that Cupcake

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's 50% mean under BJ Bill when he had good performing loans, it wasn't until Dubya CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS SUBPRIME BUBBLE THAT BAD LOANS WERE MADE?



You know as the chart show's, 2004-2007? lol

50% subprime.

Sounds like a good idea, until the music stops and the subprime borrowers can't refi and can't pull out equity.

50% bad, 56% worse doesn't make 50% good.

DURR

 

[JonKoch]

Parents should give their kids their walking papers the day they graduate from high school.

So a 100% inheritance tax you'd support? Good

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

HEY DUMMY, LEARN TO READ


By way of comparison, Fannie and Freddie loans originated over the same period have defaulted at a rate of only 5.9 percent.

Doesn't say they loaned out the money, but the loans ORIGINATED OVER THE SAME PERIOD (THE ONES F/F BOUGHT YOU KNOW?)

Wall Street crap, incentivized by HUD requirements, doesn't make Fannie and Freddie crap somehow good.

You never said, how much of the subprime crap ended up in Fannie/Freddie and government hands?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want the REAL numbers or the ones CREATED by Peter Wallison and Ed Pinto Cupcake?

If you have some real numbers, post them already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure, I guess going from 50% to 56% wouldn't be bad but Dubya ALSO allowed them to count loans without requiring the loans even be able to be paid back, UNLIKE CLINTON 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.

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

• 

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.

Reason #3, regulators forced them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NAH ACTUALLY NOT ALL SUBPRIMES WERE LOW QUA;ITY CUPCAKE

Based on research into mortgage lending between 2004 and 2008, a significant portion of subprime borrowers actually possessed credit characteristics that would have traditionally qualified them for prime loans.

• Borrowers with Prime Scores: Studies have indicated that around 60% to 75% of subprime borrowers during the 2004–2008 boom period had credit scores (FICO) of 620 or higher, which is generally the threshold for prime or "near-prime" (Alt-A) loans.

• The "Missed" Opportunity: Many of these individuals were pushed into high-interest subprime loans despite having high credit scores, often driven by the rapid growth of non-traditional loan products (like 2- or 3-year hybrid ARMs) and aggressive marketing.

• Borrowers of Color: Research indicated that black and Latino borrowers with good credit scores (660 or higher) were up to three times more likely to be given higher-rate subprime loans than white borrowers with similar scores.

WEIRD RIGHT? Oh yeah, Dubya had 1% GROWTH 2001-2007 WITHOUT PEOPLE USING THEIR HOMES AS ATM'S, WHICH IS WHY US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED IN THE 7 YEARS!

NAH ACTUALLY NOT ALL SUBPRIMES WERE LOW QUA;ITY CUPCAKE

When you lend to less qualified buyers and you also allow lower down payments, you're making more low quality loans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Want a response, tell me WHERE it shows that Cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

Two biggest crashes = 08' Housing (Congress, *** FRANK etc.) then China Flu (with DEMs) then Election Fraud all DEEP State. Now %1T fraud to clean out. You + dirty media, you own it 95%.

Sorry, Dubya's home ownership society PONZI scheme that the Banksters pushed world wide, was Barney Frank's problem? The guy who was a minority in the GOP majority House Jan 1995- Jan 2007? PLEASE tell me the super powers he had?



The Presidents Working Group's March 2008 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





"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."

https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/Net-Drain-in-Home-Ownership.pdf

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.



MY OLD THREAD

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]

Two biggest crashes = 08' Housing (Congress, *** FRANK etc.) then China Flu (with DEMs) then Election Fraud all DEEP State. Now %1T fraud to clean out. You + dirty media, you own it 95%.

China flu that Cheeto ignored and hid from US?

Trump told Bob Woodward he knew in February that COVID-19 was 'deadly stuff' but wanted to 'play it down'​

"It's not just old people," Trump told Woodward, acknowledging the gravity of the disease, The Washington Post reported.