US income inequality at record high

[BawanaRik]

bingo.

The rule of thumb for investment used to be that it was reasonable to expect a long-term (non-volatile) investment to double its value in 12 years.

So, an investor starting off with a 401K portfolio valued @ $300k at its inception, should reasonably expect it value to be near $600k in 12 years.

A $300k 401K started in 2001 would likely be valued at $180k - $200k today.

That really left a bad taste in many mouths.

I'm doing better now than I was in 2001. You're attempting to use extremes and compare them to averages.

I'm not sure that's good idea.

Here's a chart of the DJIA. I have some, probably too much invested in these American style stocks.

Besides the equity gains I get interest from many of these stocks.

These are a better investment than a WaMu credit card.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^dji;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

 

[BawanaRik]

My wife and I work until late July every year to pay our taxes between state, federal, property, capital gains, and a laundry list of others. The government is kind enough to allow us to keep everything we make for not quite the second HALF OF THE YEAR. Is that fair?

Millions of people in this country pay none. Is that fair?

The poorest among us pay none. So how are "regressive tax rates" keeping them from moving upwards? Just curious.

I may be wrong but it seems something other than regressive tax rates are "Keeping people down".

Any suggestions? BTW you don't need to answer. You can just chuckle. In fact that might be better.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

You are naive.

Call me insane if I think that one should not buy a house without being able to afford it...... or thinking that it is the responsibility of anyone taking on that much responsibility to have an attorney read it over and perhaps SLEEP ON IT a few days before signing on the bottom line rather than going for the instant gratification of home ownership..... or for thinking that it is too much to ask for anyone getting ready to buy a house to stop and think "I make $20K a year. Is buying a $300K house a GOOD IDEA AT THIS TIME?????" Clearly I need some free mental healthcare.

And the main difference between the lender and the musician is that the VERY MOMENT the musician handed the lender a quitarron and said "You are now clear to butcher Guantanamera", the lender wouldn't even BLINK before saying "No way. I can't do that. I don't play guitar(ron). And to attempt it would be silly." So why didn't the MUSICIAN say that when the freakin LENDER handed him a PEN and said SIGN HERE at the bottom of your new THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR MORTGAGE????? Even if the fine print wasn't spelled out for the idiot MUSICIAN, perhaps he could have THOUGHT THIS ONE THROUGH a little bit! Too much to ask I guess.

Yep. Yer right. Totally the lender's fault for not completely explaining variable interest rates and handing him the pen. :scowl: At no point should it have crossed the collective minds of the thousands of idiots who took out loans they couldn't afford to perhaps ...... oh I don't know...... NOT DO IT.

I just think your viewing it wrong.

The bank has a responsibility to others, the purchaser of the house, doesn't.

Lets agree on a few things
People are stupid aren't they?

Ok good now lets go from there.

If we know people make stupid decisions, why take a risk on someone who cannot make the first payment. Especially when 100% of their monthly income won't cover the cost.

I know people who have done this with cars, people are stupid dont we know that by now? There are people out there that would do it just for 3 free months in the house/car.

So lets look at someone WHO'S JOB

is to determine what their customers can afford to pay back. It's their JOB, when the monthly note is 80%+ of their monthly income shouldn't someone WHO'S JOB it is to deny you... Actually deny you?

If not. Why not just have ATMS that answer yes to any and every loan request and instantly spit out money?

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

OK so my working more than half the year to pay for those things is "fair". And the poor pay plenty of income taxes. Got it. Reality check I guess. Who knew?

If its not fair why are you doing it?

 

[bolophonic]

Nobody accuesed the mariachi singer of being lazy. Greed is a matter of opinion and perspective. Can anyone argue that someone probably making $20-30k per year made a wise decision to buy a $300k home? What does that sort of mortgage payment run per month? Probably more than his income.

Then the mariachi singer sounds guilty of being delusional, rather than greedy.

 

[spade2you]

I just think your viewing it wrong.

The bank has a responsibility to others, the purchaser of the house, doesn't.

Lets agree on a few things
People are stupid aren't they?

Ok good now lets go from there.

If we know people make stupid decisions, why take a risk on someone who cannot make the first payment. Especially when 100% of their monthly income won't cover the cost.

I know people who have done this with cars, people are stupid dont we know that by now? There are people out there that would do it just for 3 free months in the house/car.

So lets look at someone WHO'S JOB

is to determine what their customers can afford to pay back. It's their JOB, when the monthly note is 80%+ of their monthly income shouldn't someone WHO'S JOB it is to deny you... Actually deny you?

People are not stupid; they're victims!!! If they're stupid, it's the teachers or other political party's fault.

Secondly, we're a nation that wants a lot and now. We're entitled to it. Now that this happened, of course we'd be more responsible. Wouldn't people complain if they we're denied by fascist loan officers?

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

People are not stupid; they're victims!!! If they're stupid, it's the teachers or other political party's fault.

Secondly, we're a nation that wants a lot and now. We're entitled to it. Now that this happened, of course we'd be more responsible. Wouldn't people complain if they we're denied by fascist loan officers?

I have been denied of something before I learned to deal with it and meet their terms.

 

[BawanaRik]

I just think your viewing it wrong.

The bank has a responsibility to others, the purchaser of the house, doesn't.

Lets agree on a few things
People are stupid aren't they?

Ok good now lets go from there.

If we know people make stupid decisions, why take a risk on someone who cannot make the first payment. Especially when 100% of their monthly income won't cover the cost.

I know people who have done this with cars, people are stupid dont we know that by now? There are people out there that would do it just for 3 free months in the house/car.

So lets look at someone WHO'S JOB

is to determine what their customers can afford to pay back. It's their JOB, when the monthly note is 80%+ of their monthly income shouldn't someone WHO'S JOB it is to deny you... Actually deny you?

If not. Why not just have ATMS that answer yes to any and every loan request and instantly spit out money?

These loans weren't volunteer on the part of the bank. They were forced to make many of them

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

These loans weren't volunteer on the part of the bank. They were forced to make many of them

Now we have a new problem!!!

 

[BawanaRik]

If its not fair why are you doing it?

So I'm getting the impression that the slaves building the pyramids thought that was fair. According toy our post.

That's just the way I'm reading. If I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

 

[two fingers]

If its not fair why are you doing it?

The only other alternative is to be "working class". And, clearly, nobody wants that.

Now, back to the question.

Do YOU think it is fair for me to work more than half the year to pay taxes?

 

[BawanaRik]

Now we have a new problem!!!

I may be wrong but I feel it's an old problem.

 

[bolophonic]

Nope. Nice try melodramatic guy. My point has ALWAYS been that the borrower and the lender share EQUAL responsibility. Whereas most on the other side still claim that the borrower is "mostly a victim" of "wiser more experienced seemingly trustworthy" lenders. Lender was a cheat. Borrower was an idiot. And, again, you can't legislate away stupid. If you could, many of us would be strapped to padded chairs being fed healthy food through a straw and never allowed to leave the house.

I have never suggested that every borrower who got in over their head was a victim. Plenty of people have been thrown out of houses they couldn't afford and never deserved. On the other hand, I do believe that lenders who gave out loans to people that they knew could not afford them are NOT victims at all. At best, they were incompetent, at worst, they knew they would recoup their losses through CDO's, mortgage backed securities, foreclosures and taxpayer bailouts. What I find particularly odd about your characterization of "the other side" is that I have never heard anyone make any of the arguments that you keep referring to. The only place you hear those arguments are from talk radio pundits making up straw men to shred for their audiences.

 

[two fingers]

These loans weren't volunteer on the part of the bank. They were forced to make many of them

Ha! I wouldn't go down that road if I were you. Just banging your head against the wall. They won't believe that any more than they will believe many banks that didn't want it were FORCED to take bailouts.....(cough) sorry...... "corporate welfare".

I get what you are saying. But they won't.

 

[two fingers]

I have never suggested that every borrower who got in over their head was a victim. Plenty of people have been thrown out of houses they couldn't afford and never deserved. On the other hand, I do believe that lenders who gave out loans to people that they knew could not afford them are NOT victims at all. At best, they were incompetent, at worst, they knew they would recoup their losses through CDO's, mortgage backed securities, foreclosures and taxpayer bailouts. What I find particularly odd about your characterization of "the other side" is that I have never heard anyone make any of the arguments that you keep referring to. The only place you hear those arguments are from talk radio pundits making up straw men to shred for their audiences.

Who makes these arguments? I never have time for radio and/orTV anymore (other than the occasional Bubble Guppies episode with my kids). But If I do get time, perhaps I should try listening to/watching someone who echos what I already feel to be the case.

Edit to Add: I lied. I do occasionally have a Red Sox game on in the background while I'm doing homework. MLB package online is the BEST.

 

[BawanaRik]

Ha! I wouldn't go down that road if I were you. Just banging your head against the wall. They won't believe that any more than they will believe many banks that didn't want it were FORCED to take bailouts.....(cough) sorry...... "corporate welfare".

I get what you are saying. But they won't.

I was never a fan of the handouts, opps I mean BAILOUTS, in the first place.

I'm also not a fan of too big to fail, too big to jail.

I can't help thinking there it's someone's job to deal with these malignancies. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[fdeck]

As far as #1 goes I couldn't agree more. I took an early morning class in high school years ago that was called "consumer math". It should be required of every high school graduate. Just being able to figure interest (of all kinds) would open the eyes of many who are thinking of taking on debt, be it credit card, mortgage, car loan, whatever.

Wow, two agreements in one day.

 

[BawanaRik]

Who makes these arguments? I never have time for radio and/orTV anymore (other than the occasional Bubble Guppies episode with my kids). But If I do get time, perhaps I should try listening to/watching someone who echos what I already feel to be the case.

I have my doubts about the whole talk radio thing.

When I'm looking to expand myself I go for books by guys like Milton and Rose Friedman and Jared Diamond. I like to sit down with the WSJ.

I have to say I've never had the pleasure of actually spending the time to listen to talk radio but judging the drone like reactions of the followers who do I bet I'm not missing much

 

[Truktek2]

I will (when they are old enough). And I'm pretty sure that I pay enough taxes not only to educate my own, but add a wing to the gym and maybe put a computer in every classroom there. So you won't be educating mine. I'm probably educating yours.

Doubtful. Unless you'd like to send me a check for 7k

I'm married to a doctor who is a partner in a private practice. They are in meetings now to decide whether or not they will continue to take on new government assisted patients because the amount that the government thinks is "enough" for a doctor visit is a mere $25. That isn't enough per visit to pay the staff, maintain all the equipment to government standards, maintain all the records and paperwork to government standards (especially for those very same patients), do continuing ed and training, pay the bills, and bring some home for the family. Many of the practices in our area are not accepting new Medicaid patients, and finding creative ways to "fire" the ones they already have (although my wife's practice won't go that far). Those patients are then forced to go to doctors who work for public and/or university hospitals that get outside funding (usually from that same government) to make up the difference. And then the government will sit back and act as though their plan works beautifully. "Clearly that must be enough money per visit because those places are making it work. Never mind the big checks we send them on a regular basis as funding that has nothing whatsoever to do with making up the difference in what we pay them per visit and what it takes to stay afloat."

Any questions?

Tell you what. Let's go to government funded HVAC repair and see how the guys running those businesses do with government mandated $25 service call fees. Every body deserves to have a functioning heating and air system, right?

You ever met a mechanic that will have a look under the hood, an electrician that will take a look at your house then diagnose and fix the problem, or even a VET that will have a look at your DOG for TWENTY FIVE BUCKS???? Of course you haven't. But my wife isn't allowed to turn a profit without being seen as "evil" by many.

Never mind the fact that is takes another act of congress to even get the government to PAY those bills tiny little fees in less than six months (most of the time it's more). How many businesses you know that can afford to run six months or more behind on paid accounts?

Just more stuff that you are only allowed to consider if you are a "rich elitist fat cat hater of the poor". It is strange being married to an evil woman who wants everybody to die in the streets. She seemed nice when I met her.

Tax laws not working out for ya? Cry me a river

I'm a 42 year old father of two. I spent many years out from behind the textbooks. I sold one of my businesses and went back because I wanted to try something different. I also run a couple of side businesses while I am in school as well as gigging. So I am already real world compatible. But thank you for your well wishes anyway.

My apologies. From your posts I just assumed you were a 42 year old professional student who thought he figured out all the worlds problems, when in reality didn't know his @&& was cracked. But that's clearly NOT the case.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

The only other alternative is to be "working class". And, clearly, nobody wants that.

Now, back to the question.

Do YOU think it is fair for me to work more than half the year to pay taxes?

I don't know your situation, or how much you make. As for me.. I was getting taxed 36% which is slightly more than 1/3 of the year in your terms. But then come tax season along with my minor write offs I only ended up paying 7% this is for a lowly electrician

I can only imagine the tax write offs for a buisness owner.