Harris economic proposals

[Revoltingest]

For transients, yes some benefit.....

Many in 2008 thru 20teens unexpectedly became
"transients" when they were downsized at work.
Moving became a nightmare because their home's
value fell below the loan balance. To sell, they'd
have to raise money. But they had to move to
earn money.
Additional problems....
If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (federal government
lenders) held the loans, there was no bargaining on
principal or interest due. Pay up in full or be
foreclosed upon. Government cares about people, eh.
If a private lender held the loan, you could renegotiate,
but you had to have enuf cash on hand to pay the IRS
for the "profit", ie, on any forgiven principal & interest.
Government cares about people, eh.

....but at the cost of any long term equity, it is about the only thing the average person can use to safely build equity if you make the basic attention to maintenance etc. As for multi dwellings, it is called cooping or whatever, you own the apartment.

The average person can rent & build equity
in alternative investments, eg, stocks, REITs.

Coops are a strange form of ownership.
One owns shares in the non-profit, rather
than the unit itself. It's "ownership" though
in the sense that the "owner" has exclusive
right to occupy a unit.
Condominium ownership is different. One
has title to the unit.
Both have their risks. I've seen massive losses
in both for various reasons, eg, bad management,
government regulation.

 

[sun rise]

Remember that this is just one component of
taxing corporations. When dividends (which
aren't a deductable business expense) are
distributed, they're taxed again on personal
income tax returns.
This must be considered in the total picture
of tax policy.

Maybe we need a VAT. Of course many corporations don't really add value but that can be taken care of in the law's fine print.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe we need a VAT.

Harris is currently campaigning against that concept.
But if she's lying about it, perhaps she'll jump on board
after the election....assuming she wins.

Of course many corporations don't really add value but that can be taken care of in the law's fine print.

You really don't understand how a VAT works.
Read up on it, & we'll talk.

 

[Pogo]

The average person can rent & build equity
in alternative investments, eg, stocks, REITs.

Coops are a strange form of ownership.
One owns shares in the non-profit, rather
than the unit itself. It's "ownership" though
in the sense that the "owner" has exclusive
right to occupy a unit.
Condominium ownership is different. One
has title to the unit.
Both have their risks. I've seen massive losses
in both for various reasons, eg, bad management,
government regulation.

It is all a risk, and yes different options for different people, but in a tight housing market rental is going to be more than owning because the l;landlord is getting the renter to pay him a profit over the cost of the property with maintainance etc. Not to mention, that you can profitably resell in some recent markets about as fast as you would change rentals. anyhow, this is a chance for some who haven't been able to build up 20% in equities or otherwise to get out of the rental loop or increasing rents As for sellers and lenders, Rich uncle Sam is on the hook for the DP,

 

[sun rise]

Harris is currently campaigning against that concept.
But if she's lying about it, perhaps she'll jump on board
after the election....assuming she wins.

Unlike some, I'm not a minion and can and do have ideas that she does not have.

You really don't understand how a VAT works.
Read up on it, & we'll talk.

I made a perhaps bad joke and you took it to be a serious comment. Or maybe you just assumed I'm an ignoramus.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is all a risk, and yes different options for different people, but in a tight housing market rental is going to be more than owning because the l;landlord is getting the renter to pay him a profit over the cost of the property with maintainance etc.

That argument doesn't consider....
- Ability to rent homes smaller than purchased detached homes.
- Landlord's being able to get more cost effective services, eg, maintenance, insurance.
- Tight housing markets mean increased purchase prices.
- The high transfer costs if an owner needs to sell & re-purchase elsewhere.

Not to mention, that you can profitably resell in some recent markets about as fast as you would change rentals.

Housing prices can also fall.
It's happening in FL.

anyhow, this is a chance for some who haven't been able to build up 20% in equities or otherwise to get out of the rental loop or increasing rents

If someone can't build any equity while renting,
it's unwise to presume they'll do so with a
subsidized purchase.

As for sellers and lenders, Rich uncle Sam is on the hook for the DP,

Taxpayers foot the bill for losses.

 

[sun rise]

Both parties employ deficit spending every
administration & every economic condition.
I oppose this.

Serious analysis of Harris' statements say that the deficit might be erased depending on which of her promises actually happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unlike some, I'm not a minion and can and do have ideas that she does not have.

This is good.
Does she even have minions?
She doesn't seem that inspiring.
Merely far far better than Trump.

I made a perhaps bad joke and you took it to be a serious comment. Or maybe you just assumed I'm an ignoramus.

I detected the joke.
But also sensed lack of understanding
based upon hating corporations....
....except for the DNC.

 

[Pogo]

That argument doesn't consider....
- Ability to rent homes smaller than purchased detached homes.
- Landlord's being able to get more cost effective services, eg, maintenance, insurance.
- Tight housing markets mean increased purchase prices.
- The high transfer costs if an owner needs to sell & re-purchase elsewhere.

Housing prices can also fall.
It's happening in FL.

If someone can't build any equity while renting,
it's unwise to presume they'll do so with a
subsidized purchase.

Taxpayers foot the bill for losses.

Yes buying a house has some risk, no-one said it didn't and no-one said it is for everybody, but for some with reasonable stability to make longer term decisions it still makes sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes buying a house has some risk, no-one said it didn't and no-one said it is for everybody, but for some with reasonable stability to make longer term decisions it still makes sense.

My advice is to not jump into home ownership
without careful consideration of benefits, risks,
& costs.
It's much like going to college in this way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The one that would increase the deficit by 4+Trillion dollars and cost the average person about an extra 2600$ after tax reductions unless you were in the top1% in which case it would actually benefit you.

Yeah it was dismissed as absurd when it came out.

Yeah that's what they say, well I guess you got your economist and Trump has his, and of course the bottom line is time will tell.

 

[Watchmen]

At 21% the corporate tax rate is below average for western nations, 28 would put us somewhat higher than average but I don't think enough to scare business away and would help the deficit a lot. Trump who reduced it to 21, wants to reduce it further to 15%. It should also be noted that the main effect of Trump's reduction was to allow companies to buy back stock and they did not spend it on wages or other investments, though the loss of revenue has ballooned the deficit.

As to FHA? loans, they still require the down payment, I understand these are subsidies for that which allowed a friend to actually buy a house rather than rent. He is paying it back, it is just another loan to indemnify the normal lender for what they would normally require as a downpayment. Overall I think it is a good idea.

Why is your default that we must be like other western nations? Also, this is a thread about Harris' proposals. I don't care about Trump's ridiculousness.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The big problem is the Government currently gets a -20% rate of return for the tax payers due to interest on the national debt. That interest is more than we spend on the Military and if the boneheads did not make all that debt, the amount saved could secure both Social Security and Medicare.

Harris is a Big Government Socialist type, which means, even if she does implement, it will cost more than it gives back due to being led by the Bigger Government needed to add more stuff. She will not repurpose people but add people. The better way is to get Government out of the way; reducing regulations and bureaucracy. so the -20% rate of return factor on the economy is minimized.

Another tax cut would go right to the people; cut out the -20% middleman, who then can get 0% or a plus rate of return, instead of the Bigger Government -20% just for touching the money. Rather than take on more debt, we need to cut government down to a proper size and repurpose what is left to address the main social problems in more cost effective ways.

• eliminating unnecessary college degree requirements for federal jobs; this Harris speak for more DEI dummies; bigger and dumber Government. She is not about upping the Government game, but dumbing it down, which means more inefficiency, where throwing money at problems replaces common sense cost effective solutions.
• 
  
• raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent; She wants to take money away from those who get positive rate of return and add to the GNP and give it to Government who gets -20%. She is a moron, when it comes to economics. This is the same strategy that caused businesses to go overseas, where they can get better tax rates and make higher profits, leading to loss of US jobs.
• 
  
• stimulating the housing market;
• subsidizing first-time home buyers; This same tactic led to the Housing crisis of 2008. Obama came in the peak. The Government made it too easy to get loans, even if you were not qualified and posed a risk of default. This increased demand for housing, which caused prices to increase, which then made people have to borrow more and carry even more debt. Then the bubble burst and there a massive sell off and default, with home values dropping, until people owed more that their house was worth. Government needs to stay out of the market place. In 2008 Government gave the entire housing market their -20% rate of return. We had to bail out Banks.

The DNC never learned from the past, but do the same bonehead things again and again.

Bonehead Democrats adding to the national debt by not cutting taxes:

Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years

The “King of Debt” promised to reduce the national debt — then his tax cuts made it surge. Add in the pandemic, and he oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase of any president.

www.propublica.org

"The combination of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar."

 

[Viker]

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tariffs which will increase the cost of everyday household needs for consumers. Land, but no money for new housing. And crypto currency.

Brilliant.

The future of everything is dead if this crap gets put in motion. He's basically wanting to make America into Tesla truck.

 

[Pogo]

Why is your default that we must be like other western nations? Also, this is a thread about Harris' proposals. I don't care about Trump's ridiculousness.

Yes it was a comment about Harris's proposal and how it relates to similar economies along with a little history. It was also a response to someone talking about Trump's policies so a comparison is valid.

 

[sun rise]

Bonehead Democrats adding to the national debt by not cutting taxes:

Tax cuts have never paid for themselves. What happens is the deficit goes up with borrow and spend Republican policies. History proves the deficit rises under Republican government and goes down under Democratic. The proposals this time would have the same effect.

 

[Pogo]

Tax cuts have never paid for themselves. What happens is the deficit goes up with borrow and spend Republican policies. History proves the deficit rises under Republican government and goes down under Democratic. The proposals this time would have the same effect.

And Oil company stockholders will join Donald in cutting their income by drilling more on the leases they already have, and coal will come back too like Donald said it would the last time he had an energy policy.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Tax cuts have never paid for themselves. What happens is the deficit goes up with borrow and spend Republican policies. History proves the deficit rises under Republican government and goes down under Democratic. The proposals this time would have the same effect.

Agreed. If we are going to cut taxes, best to do it where it will have the most impact: on lower income demographics. Even if it means raising taxes on the higher income folks.