|
Post by theterrace on May 17, 2010 15:14:03 GMT -5
At least be honest with yourself. The proposal is to let some KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY - a tax CREDIT. By definition it's the complete opposite of redistribution. If your going to get your shorts twisted, acknowledge it is because it isn't a proposal to take more of other people's earned money and spending it (redistributing it) the way you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 17, 2010 16:20:01 GMT -5
At least be honest with yourself. The proposal is to let some KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY - a tax CREDIT. By definition it's the complete opposite of redistribution. If your going to get your shorts twisted, acknowledge it is because it isn't a proposal to take more of other people's earned money and spending it (redistributing it) the way you'd like. BS. If your tax is not enough to be reduced by $15,000 you get the difference in a refund above your tax payments. For example if you only paid $5,000 in taxes, the State gives you another $10,000 in cash - you know, "welfare for the rich" They are taking my tax payments, yours and that of those that earn just enough above the poverty level ( to say nothing of their sales tax) to pay taxes and give it to rich stock brokers so they can buy half million dollar homes. (in order to qualify for the full $15 K at 5% of value, you would have to buy at least a $300,000 home)Redistribution of wealth does not always equal welfare for the poor and needy. Of course, as Reagan would say, it's "trickle down economics" the rich guy that just got handed $15 K from the State for buying a house can afford give the poor minimum wage waitress a bigger tip with your tax money.
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 18, 2010 8:47:01 GMT -5
At least be honest with yourself. The proposal is to let some KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY - a tax CREDIT. By definition it's the complete opposite of redistribution. If your going to get your shorts twisted, acknowledge it is because it isn't a proposal to take more of other people's earned money and spending it (redistributing it) the way you'd like. BS. If your tax is not enough to be reduced by $15,000 you get the difference in a refund above your tax payments. For example if you only paid $5,000 in taxes, the State gives you another $10,000 in cash - you know, "welfare for the rich" They are taking my tax payments, yours and that of those that earn just enough above the poverty level ( to say nothing of their sales tax) to pay taxes and give it to rich stock brokers so they can buy half million dollar homes. (in order to qualify for the full $15 K at 5% of value, you would have to buy at least a $300,000 home)Redistribution of wealth does not always equal welfare for the poor and needy. Of course, as Reagan would say, it's "trickle down economics" the rich guy that just got handed $15 K from the State for buying a house can afford give the poor minimum wage waitress a bigger tip with your tax money. too funny. These rich stockbrokers making $150K pay $10K per year in nj income tax; prob another $5K in sales tax. (Plus another 5-20K in property tax.) So this bill let's one keep $5K per year for three years. yippee. Good for the working family who pays taxes and desires home ownership; bad for the bottom feeder that wants to suck on that other guys $5K per year. Bill is being sponsored by Aud Park's own assemblyman Greenwald.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 18, 2010 13:30:41 GMT -5
BS. If your tax is not enough to be reduced by $15,000 you get the difference in a refund above your tax payments. For example if you only paid $5,000 in taxes, the State gives you another $10,000 in cash - you know, "welfare for the rich" They are taking my tax payments, yours and that of those that earn just enough above the poverty level ( to say nothing of their sales tax) to pay taxes and give it to rich stock brokers so they can buy half million dollar homes. (in order to qualify for the full $15 K at 5% of value, you would have to buy at least a $300,000 home)Redistribution of wealth does not always equal welfare for the poor and needy. Of course, as Reagan would say, it's "trickle down economics" the rich guy that just got handed $15 K from the State for buying a house can afford give the poor minimum wage waitress a bigger tip with your tax money. too funny. These rich stockbrokers making $150K pay $10K per year in nj income tax; prob another $5K in sales tax. (Plus another 5-20K in property tax.) So this bill let's one keep $5K per year for three years. yippee. Good for the working family who pays taxes and desires home ownership; bad for the bottom feeder that wants to suck on that other guys $5K per year. Bill is being sponsored by Aud Park's own assemblyman Greenwald. You're too funny - or you don't understand how this works. This is really not a "tax credit" deal, someone does not have to pay a penny in income taxes to collect $15,000 it is only processed through the State income tax system. Examples of people who pay no State income tax would be retirees living off of social security , people living off the income from tax free municipal bonds and people who don't work and live off their parents inheritance. (They can all sell their paid off houses and buy a new one and still collect $15,000 without paying a penny in State income tax - there is no first time home buyer stipulation associated with this deal and the only restriction is to live there three years).Here is another example, right up your alley. Three generations are living in grandma's house in Camden - all 14 people are on welfare. The house is paid off and insured for $190,000. It burns down and they collect the insurance. They take their $190,000 cash " and buy a house in Audubon next door to you. They use the $9,500 State "tax rebate" to buy dope and booze. How do you like them apples? Nobody ever pays State income tax in the entire house and nobody works. Somehow, I knew you would like that example the best ;D
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 19, 2010 8:31:52 GMT -5
Here is another example, right up your alley. Three generations are living in grandma's house in Camden - all 14 people are on welfare. So you jump from your initial concern over the law benefiting rich stock brokers to 14 welfare queens now gaming the system??? And you wonder why you're so funny??? You sound like a baiter. First with class/wealth baiting; now stooping to race baiting. Please stick to facts.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 19, 2010 9:09:40 GMT -5
Here is another example, right up your alley. Three generations are living in grandma's house in Camden - all 14 people are on welfare. So you jump from your initial concern over the law benefiting rich stock brokers to 14 welfare queens now gaming the system??? And you wonder why you're so funny??? You sound like a baiter. First with class/wealth baiting; now stooping to race baiting. Please stick to facts. Only a racist would assume that 14 people on welfare from Camden aren't white. This is an equal opportunity "tax credit", anyone who buys a house gets it whether they are so rich they live off an inheritance and don't pay tax or whether they are so poor they are on welfare and don't pay tax. The concept here is "economic stimulus" - creating work for the building trades. They are really the ones getting a $100 million hand out. I wish the State would give my customers a handout in order to encourage them to buy from me. Maybe The Right Wing Hardware Store can get a "trickle down" benefit from this, I might be able to sell a hammer to a team of union carpenters -( the one who holds the nail and the other one that drives it in with a hammer.)
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 19, 2010 10:14:59 GMT -5
The concept here is "economic stimulus" - creating work for the building trades. They are really the ones getting a $100 million hand out. Why does the bill limit the credit to a "residential property previously occupied as a residence?" Why not new construction? The bill appears to be an attempt more to artificially support home prices and to provide a small incentive to high wage earners (those paying outrageous state income taxes) to stay in nj; a mobile demographic that is leaving the state in numbers due to taxes. Taxes which are redistributed to support others. As an aside, it is some warped thinking when the state proposes to let one keep a small portion of their own hard earn money to spend as they desire and you spin it as a hand-out.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 19, 2010 10:38:36 GMT -5
The concept here is "economic stimulus" - creating work for the building trades. They are really the ones getting a $100 million hand out. Why does the bill limit the credit to a "residential property previously occupied as a residence?" Why not new construction? The bill appears to be an attempt more to artificially support home prices and to provide a small incentive to high wage earners (those paying outrageous state income taxes) to stay in nj; a mobile demographic that is leaving the state in numbers due to taxes. Taxes which are redistributed to support others. As an aside, it is some warped thinking when the state proposes to let one keep a small portion of their own hard earn money to spend as they desire and you spin it as a hand-out. I thought I read in the Bill that 75% of the money was for new construction and 25% for existing. Read it again. Nobody is getting to keep any of their own tax money, this is an economic stimulus bill that is paid for by all taxpayers, including the ones that get the housing funds. The real debate is not "paying less tax or keeping some tax money". This is a $100 million State expenditure that I questioned whether was necessary or not - everyone is paying more tax for this to happen. Where do you think the $100 million came from to pay from the program and how do you think the State is giving home buyers more back than they paid in taxes? Beside putting people to work to build new houses another argument for the bill is that the new homes will generate new and additional property tax in their local community. One could argue that 75% of the money spent on this program will come back as new property taxes, thus reducing property taxes for everyone in the towns where the homes are built. This should be a debate about this bill, not a philosophical argument about a conservative view that people should "keep their own money rather than give it to the Government"
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 19, 2010 12:35:42 GMT -5
This should be a debate about this bill, not a philosophical argument about a conservative view that people should "keep their own money rather than give it to the Government" I didn't realize working to keep one's own money was just a conservative view. By all means, if libs wish to contribute more to the state treasury I'm certain they'll accept. The state should refer to your 14 welfare queen home trade as a "cash for home clunkers" program. Then all the Obama libtards would be touting its genius. Talk about a waste of tax dollars. But stupid is as stupid does.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 19, 2010 14:33:40 GMT -5
This should be a debate about this bill, not a philosophical argument about a conservative view that people should "keep their own money rather than give it to the Government" I didn't realize working to keep one's own money was just a conservative view. By all means, if libs wish to contribute more to the state treasury I'm certain they'll accept. The state should refer to your 14 welfare queen home trade as a "cash for home clunkers" program. Then all the Obama libtards would be touting its genius. Talk about a waste of tax dollars. But stupid is as stupid does. The "Cash For Clunkers" car program was a smashing success. It moved a lot of dealer inventory and kept people in the auto industry employed at the height of the recession. The States realized sales tax on all the cars sold and income tax on the salaries and commissions of those employed in the auto industry. But for now let's revue the potential kick start that the $100 million NJ home buyer credit can create. 1) A minimum of 6,700 homes will be involved (value $300,000 each) = $2 Billion in RE sales. Real estate sales commissions will be $121 million State income tax will be $7.2 million from RE sales people on home sales 2) About 5,000 of the homes will be new construction and will generate $1.5 Billion in new home sales. Net profits for builders will be: $75 Million and they will pay $ 4.5 million in Taxes to the State3) Construction worker's earnings on the 5,000 new homes will be $750 million and they will pay $45 million in State income taxTotal State income tax generated from the $100 million program is about $57 million, so that does not add up. However, property taxes from the new homes over 3 years adds about $75 million in new tax revenues and potential State aid that does not have to be given to the communities. So the State recovers $132 million in the three years it is paying out the $100 million "credit" In the 4th year and every year thereafter, the State and communities benefit by an additional $25 million in property taxes on the 5,000 new homes. So if you are after facts and want to add up the numbers, this program pays for itself in new tax revenues in less than three years to say nothing of the $2 billion in real estate and construction money it kicks into the economy. As I said, it has nothing to do with paying less taxes or 14 welfare queens, unless you listen to the logic of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Theterrace who just don't want to pay taxes for any reason and make up emotional arguments about other people getting their money. This program seems like a good way to invest public funds that are collected through taxes, since it ultimately pays for itself, provides an economic stimulus and lowers taxes.
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 19, 2010 15:43:39 GMT -5
This program seems like a good way to invest public funds that are collected through taxes, since it ultimately pays for itself, provides an economic stimulus and lowers taxes. Almost exactly right. The program and your analysis show the benefit of letting people KEEP more of their hard earned money and spending it (in this case on homes.) One can dream how much the state economy would explode if not held back by excessive taxes. Compare this to cash for clunkers in which the US taxpayer went further into debt for a program that penalized anyone unlucky who made a good "green" decision while benefiting anyone who choose to drive a gas-guzzling, polluting hog. A program that worked so well they stopped it. And subsequent sales figures showed it was nothing but a gimmick; a crack high before the crash. And how much did the government pay for each rebate? 10x as much? But I got mine so who's complaining. Just another laugh at the stupidness of it all. Why not twice as much cash? Why not twice as long?? Because they know it was a gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 19, 2010 16:11:30 GMT -5
This program seems like a good way to invest public funds that are collected through taxes, since it ultimately pays for itself, provides an economic stimulus and lowers taxes. Almost exactly right. The program and your analysis show the benefit of letting people KEEP more of their hard earned money and spending it (in this case on homes.) One can dream how much the state economy would explode if not held back by excessive taxes. Compare this to cash for clunkers in which the US taxpayer went further into debt for a program that penalized anyone unlucky who made a good "green" decision while benefiting anyone who choose to drive a gas-guzzling, polluting hog. A program that worked so well they stopped it. And subsequent sales figures showed it was nothing but a gimmick; a crack high before the crash. And how much did the government pay for each rebate? 10x as much? But I got mine so who's complaining. Just another laugh at the stupidness of it all. Why not twice as much cash? Why not twice as long?? Because they know it was a gimmick. You keep getting it wrong, they are not keeping their money to buy the houses, they are taking yours. I'm glad you are so generous. I just hope the numbers work out like I calculated them and you get some of your money back, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on May 20, 2010 7:04:11 GMT -5
I didn't realize working to keep one's own money was just a conservative view. By all means, if libs wish to contribute more to the state treasury I'm certain they'll accept. The state should refer to your 14 welfare queen home trade as a "cash for home clunkers" program. Then all the Obama libtards would be touting its genius. Talk about a waste of tax dollars. But stupid is as stupid does. The "Cash For Clunkers" car program was a smashing success. It moved a lot of dealer inventory and kept people in the auto industry employed at the height of the recession. The States realized sales tax on all the cars sold and income tax on the salaries and commissions of those employed in the auto industry. But for now let's revue the potential kick start that the $100 million NJ home buyer credit can create. 1) A minimum of 6,700 homes will be involved (value $300,000 each) = $2 Billion in RE sales. Real estate sales commissions will be $121 million State income tax will be $7.2 million from RE sales people on home sales 2) About 5,000 of the homes will be new construction and will generate $1.5 Billion in new home sales. Net profits for builders will be: $75 Million and they will pay $ 4.5 million in Taxes to the State3) Construction worker's earnings on the 5,000 new homes will be $750 million and they will pay $45 million in State income taxTotal State income tax generated from the $100 million program is about $57 million, so that does not add up. However, property taxes from the new homes over 3 years adds about $75 million in new tax revenues and potential State aid that does not have to be given to the communities. So the State recovers $132 million in the three years it is paying out the $100 million "credit" In the 4th year and every year thereafter, the State and communities benefit by an additional $25 million in property taxes on the 5,000 new homes. So if you are after facts and want to add up the numbers, this program pays for itself in new tax revenues in less than three years to say nothing of the $2 billion in real estate and construction money it kicks into the economy. As I said, it has nothing to do with paying less taxes or 14 welfare queens, unless you listen to the logic of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Theterrace who just don't want to pay taxes for any reason and make up emotional arguments about other people getting their money. This program seems like a good way to invest public funds that are collected through taxes, since it ultimately pays for itself, provides an economic stimulus and lowers taxes. Dayum, make up your mind. In the other thread you were against this thing because it was 'for the stockbrokers.' Now, it looks like you approve. Make up your mind, you're giving me whip lash! PS - When did it become a crime to make money in the US? Hmm....
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on May 20, 2010 7:18:39 GMT -5
The "Cash For Clunkers" car program was a smashing success. It moved a lot of dealer inventory and kept people in the auto industry employed at the height of the recession. The States realized sales tax on all the cars sold and income tax on the salaries and commissions of those employed in the auto industry. But for now let's revue the potential kick start that the $100 million NJ home buyer credit can create. 1) A minimum of 6,700 homes will be involved (value $300,000 each) = $2 Billion in RE sales. Real estate sales commissions will be $121 million State income tax will be $7.2 million from RE sales people on home sales 2) About 5,000 of the homes will be new construction and will generate $1.5 Billion in new home sales. Net profits for builders will be: $75 Million and they will pay $ 4.5 million in Taxes to the State3) Construction worker's earnings on the 5,000 new homes will be $750 million and they will pay $45 million in State income taxTotal State income tax generated from the $100 million program is about $57 million, so that does not add up. However, property taxes from the new homes over 3 years adds about $75 million in new tax revenues and potential State aid that does not have to be given to the communities. So the State recovers $132 million in the three years it is paying out the $100 million "credit" In the 4th year and every year thereafter, the State and communities benefit by an additional $25 million in property taxes on the 5,000 new homes. So if you are after facts and want to add up the numbers, this program pays for itself in new tax revenues in less than three years to say nothing of the $2 billion in real estate and construction money it kicks into the economy. As I said, it has nothing to do with paying less taxes or 14 welfare queens, unless you listen to the logic of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Theterrace who just don't want to pay taxes for any reason and make up emotional arguments about other people getting their money. This program seems like a good way to invest public funds that are collected through taxes, since it ultimately pays for itself, provides an economic stimulus and lowers taxes. Dayum, make up your mind. In the other thread you were against this thing because it was 'for the stockbrokers.' Now, it looks like you approve. Make up your mind, you're giving me whip lash! PS - When did it become a crime to make money in the US? Hmm.... I said that there could be a case made for doing it. The "numbers" I put up could be "The Case". The new homes make the case ( not the existing ones) On the other hand, the new homes could already be constructed, just not sold. The bill principally just drives sales of them. In that case the the numbers change - taxes by the builders and workers have been paid and the property tax already exists. There is no new benefit to the $100 million hand out beyond the $7.2 million in taxes paid by the real estate agents. Which case will it be? Or a combination of both?
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on May 20, 2010 12:43:30 GMT -5
PS - When did it become a crime to make money in the US? Hmm.... It's a crime with Gatto when one gets to keep his own money via a tax credit. For 99% of users, this bill would reduce their overall tax bill to the state -- they will get to keep a small portion of their own money before it ever gets to the state coffers. Gatto is jumping thru hoops trying to find the one who will get back more than paid in. Gatto wants all money paid to the state and have them dish it as he sees appropriate. . . . good luck with that.
|
|