slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit)
Ohioguy
I would give everyone an update on our house situation. I think I
posted something on here a couple of months back about how we were going
to use a credit union financed home equity loan to purchase a house.
That fell through. At the last second, the credit union notified us
that, since we would no longer be living in our present property, the
loan would be considered a "business loan", and not a home equity loan.
The interest rate they wanted to charge was then more than 8%, so we
said no. (it was all annoying, because I notified them from the start
that we were purchasing a house to move into, not as an investment - so
they knew from the start that we would not be staying here)
Anyway, after that fell through as a source of financing, we looked
into getting an FHA rehab loan. We got set up through Wells Fargo for
one of those, and then unexpectedly found a HUD home listed for auction.
We looked at it, were impressed, and we won the auction for $60k.
(house previously sold for $117k 3 years ago) We will be putting about
$25k in repairs into it, which will be rolled into the loan. So our
total loan will be about $85k. It will have new appliances, new roof,
new water heater, new heat pump & heating system, new vinyl flooring in
kitchen & 1 bathroom, new doors - plus many other things too numerous to
mention as part of the rehab.
Anyway, we signed the documents, and have been in the process of
getting bids for the work. We got an early bid for all the work, but
then a family friend highly recommended someone, so we allowed him to
come out, look the place over, and then I waited and waited. Finally
got a bid from him, and then we prepared to sign the documents so that
he could do the work. At the last second, he called and said there was
a problem, that his work crew had joined the Navy. (yes, that is
seriously what he said) After speaking to someone else, I found out
that the real issue was related to insurance for the project.
Supposedly, he felt really bad about ditching at the last second, so
he called a friend who lives closer, and told him to take care of us.
This guy called me early this week, and I told him I was done messing
around, but that the fellow from the 1st large company we had gotten a
bid from was out of town this week, so if he could inspect the place,
look over my list of necessary work, and get us a bid by today
(Saturday), I would consider him for the work.
He seemed very gung-ho about the project at first, but after I
emailed him a complete list of the needed repairs, he never followed
through on contacting the real estate agent to look things over.
Anyway, I ended up feeling like I wasted nearly 3 weeks, partly
because I wanted to support a smaller, family business, and partly
because of my nature to want to keep hunting for a better deal. I was
pretty annoyed, because due to this delay, we will probably have to file
for an extension on closing, which will cost us a few hundred.
However, the upside from the delay is tremendous: I just heard that
congress passed a $6,500 housing tax credit, which we can take advantage
of! If we had picked a general contractor 3 weeks ago, and closed on
the loan already, we would not have been eligible.
What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This
means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child
tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time
next year. Yippee!
h
"Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This
> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child
> tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next
> year. Yippee!
Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for
having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource
suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
RickMerrill
And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the rest
of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that some
insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
Marsha
Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
Marsha
RickMerrill
It helps to start somewhere ...
Ok, it'll be my kids help both of us ...
Al
I believe you are keeping the first home. If so, you own two homes. Of
course you will call the new home your primary residence, but you
won't be living there for a long time based on all the work
contemplated. The rules I read were not comprehensive enough to be
sure of eligibility. You must have checked them out already.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
True, but it does improve the odds over no kids at all.
h
"RickMerrill" <Rick0....@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hd4m8e$82b$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she makes more
money on her investments in 4 months than I make working all year. The day I
can't physically care for myself I plan to check out. I have always paid my
own way, just like my mother. She took off 8 weeks when I was born and went
right back to work (university professor) in the 1950s. She retired when she
was 65 because she could afford to and wanted to travel. I like what I do
and so I will never retire. I don't have health insurance and don't need
it - don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit the gym every day and see
my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from working out, assuming she's
in town. And before you accuse me of being a "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a
53 year old childfree female. I'm an only child of only children. If we
could make that the reality (only or childfree households), we might be able
to get human population down to something manageable, say 3-4 billion.
Oh, and PLONK! Breederific moron.
h
"h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
news:hd53sg$u25$1...@aioe.org...
It is neither frugal nor green to have more than one child. Ever.
Rod Speed
> Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit.
>> This means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with
>> the child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us
>> at tax time next year. Yippee!
> You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone
> else's money? Exactly what part of your "refundable credit" is not
> theft? Surely, there still exists some small minority who still consider
> theft, even when institutionalized, to be immoral. What the hell are you
> teaching your kids? They'll do what they see you do, notwhat you say.
Plenty of kids deliberately avoid doing what their parents did.
> You are celebrating the core fallacy of the entire welfare state proposition:
Nothing to do with welfare, everything to do with an attempt to
stimulate the economy to avoid another great depression or worse.
> That one person's "benefit" is confiscated from the productive
> citizen(s) who actually _earned_ it. How are you any different
> from a welfare cow squeezing out another bastard for the
> marginal increase in her "benefits" ?
The obvious difference is that he didnt produce the complete
implosion of the entire world financial system and is just taking
advantage of one of the attempts to stimulate the economy.
> You wouldn't be originally from Massachussetts or California, would you?
Unlikely given the nick he chooses to use.
> FWIW: You may be able to use the original "first time homebuyer's"
> credit because in BarneyFrank-speak "first time" means anyone
> who has not bought a home within three years. Unfortunately for the
> bottom-feeders and societal leeches, that one is not "refundable". One
> must actually produce something and pay income taxes in order to
> benefit; what a concept. Unfortunately, this one is the same sort of
> smoke and mirrors as the homestead "exemption" to local ad valorem
> taxes: At the end of it all, the same amount of taxes must be
> collected so everyone gets to pay more taxes to compenstae for the
> bogus "exemption" or "refund".
> The saddest thing is that the brain-dead gullible majority that
> continues to fall for the lying politicians' lines of bullshit and
> that keeps the same lying sonsofbitches in office
> year-after-year-after-year because they've deluded themselves that
> gummint is gonna "give" them something is even allowed to vote
> because sometime in the sixties some vote-buying twits began
> redefining voting as a "right". And it ain't gonna get no better....
You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.
Rod Speed
> RickMerrill <Rick0....@gmail.nospam.com> wrote
>>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit.
>>>>> This means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child tax credit, we can have up to a
>>>>> $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next year. Yippee!
>>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS
>>> for producing more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the
>> rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that
>> some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
> Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she
> makes more money on her investments in 4 months than I make working
> all year. The day I can't physically care for myself I plan to check
> out. I have always paid my own way, just like my mother. She took off
> 8 weeks when I was born and went right back to work (university
> professor) in the 1950s. She retired when she was 65 because she
> could afford to and wanted to travel. I like what I do and so I will
> never retire. I don't have health insurance and don't need it - don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit the gym
> every day
> and see my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from working out,
> assuming she's in town. And before you accuse me of being a
> "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a 53 year old childfree female. I'm an
> only child of only children. If we could make that the reality (only
> or childfree households), we might be able to get human population
> down to something manageable, say 3-4 billion.
Dont need anything like that. Not one modern first world country is
even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
Even just letting those immigrants in basically reduces
the number of kids they end up with compared with
what they would have had back where they came from.
> Oh, and PLONK! Breederific moron.
Thats what little kids do. Put their fingers in their ears,
close their eyes, chant 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'
Rod Speed
Wrong when you are in a modern first world country that isnt
even self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
Ohioguy
> having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource
> suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
I guess it really depends on how you raise them. I'm going to raise
mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and
responsibility.
The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
tomorrow's taxpayers.
Also, without enough of them, the "social security" pyramid scheme
will implode.
Ohioguy
I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents
get old enough, their house goes to a child or grandchild. (they
typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids builds on an
addition to their house, called the "doddering house". The parents move
in to spend their old age there. While they are still able, they help
with the grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and
grandkids help take care of them. It also ensures that family history
and beliefs get passed down. Plus, there are no huge health care bills
for a nursing home, and no expectations for sending people away when
they become a burden. The parents took care of the kids when they had
to be fed all the time, had to have diapers changed, and all of that.
The roles reverse when the parents need those same things later on.
Ohioguy
> course you will call the new home your primary residence, but you
> won't be living there for a long time based on all the work
> contemplated. The rules I read were not comprehensive enough to be
> sure of eligibility. You must have checked them out already.
Yes, we will be keeping our current duplex, and renting it out. Yes,
the new home will be our primary residence, but we expect to be able to
move in by sometime in late December/early January. The FHA 203k rehab
loan stipulates that all the needed repairs MUST be made prior to us
moving in to the property, and also within a certain time frame.
(roughly 3 months of closing)
Ohioguy
>else's money?
Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new $6,500
home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income taxes.
Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes that was
supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change another
8 years or so.
In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies
that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and
here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments,
and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to
take that deduction for another several years, and will continue paying
the same US tax rate they have been for now.
I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits
of building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while longer.
Rod Speed
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS
>> for producing more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
> I guess it really depends on how you raise them.
Nope.
> I'm going to raise mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and responsibility.
And they'll ignore that and decide that stuff for themselves.
And dont forget who will be picking your nursing home.
> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids. Although kids do take up resources in the short
> term, they also become tomorrow's taxpayers.
> Also, without enough of them, the "social security" pyramid scheme will implode.
It isnt a pyramid scheme.
Rod Speed
>> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
> I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get old enough, their house goes to a child or
> grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids builds on an addition to their house, called the
> "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there. While they are still able, they help with the
> grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids help take care of them. It also ensures
> that family history and beliefs get passed down.
No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
They're dying out.
> Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no expectations for sending people away when they
> become a burden.
It doesnt always work out like that.
> The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had to have diapers
> changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those same things later on.
It doesnt always work out like that.
In spades with the hordes that decide that the amish way of life is not for them.
ChairMan
Ohioguy <no...@none.net>spewed forth:
and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to
you/us as consumers?
You should put the crack pipe away
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not
first take from someone else.
Ohioguy
>you/us as consumers?
>You should put the crack pipe away
What cost? As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax
change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and build
plants out of the country. Now that change will not occur for another 8
years. So there are no changes in the short term.
If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
think again. The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate
shareholders, at a cost to the US government.
Rod Speed
> As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and
> build plants out of the country.
Wont make any difference in practice, because they do
that because of the massive difference in labor costs.
> Now that change will not occur for another 8 years. So there are no changes in the short term.
And even you should have noticed that few low
cost consumer goods are made in the US anymore.
> If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
Corse we do.
> think again.
No need, I know we do.
> The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate shareholders,
Pig ignorant lie. The hordes that buy low priced consumer goods ALL benefit dramatically.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7ln6cuF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ohioguy wrote:
>
> >> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
>
> > I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get
> > old enough, their house goes to a child or
> > grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids
> > builds on an addition to their house, called the
> > "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there.
> > While they are still able, they help with the
> > grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids
> > help take care of them. It also ensures
> > that family history and beliefs get passed down.
>
> No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
>
> They're dying out.
That must be the australian Amish
Population Trends 1992-2008
Sixteen-Year Highlights
Population. In the 16-year period from
1992 to 2008, the Amish of North America
show an overall estimated population
growth of 84 percent, increasing from
125,000 in 1992 to 231,000 in 2008.
(Figures include adults and children.)
This pattern of vigorous growth reflects
the group�s longer term trend of
doubling about every 20 years. See
Population Change 1992-2008 tables for
details.
States. Amish communities appear in 27
states and the Canadian province of
Ontario. Over the 16-year period, six
new states (Arkansas, Colorado, Maine,
Mississippi, Nebraska, and West
Virginia) welcomed Amish residents.
However, the newcomer states have a
total of just 13 districts
(congregations)�less than 1 percent of
the total 1,710 districts in 2008.
Settlements. In the 16-year period, the
Amish show a net gain of 184 settlements
(geographical communities). This is an
increase of 81 percent, from 226
settlements in 1992 to 410 in 2008. New
settlements are typically small with a
few families in one congregation
(district). Older settlements such as
that in the Holmes County, Ohio, area
include over 200 districts. Larger
settlements may have several different
subgroups (affiliations), whereas
smaller settlements typically have just
one subgroup.
Districts. The number of local districts
(congregations of 20 to 35 families)
grew from 929 to 1,710, an increase of
781 (84 percent) in the 16-year period.
See Population Change 1992-2008 summary
tables for details.
Big Three States. Historically, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Indiana have claimed
about two thirds of the North American
Amish population. Their share of the
Amish pie declined since 1992, from 69
percent to 63 percent in 2008. All three
of them (Ohio: 60 percent, Indiana: 72
percent, Pennsylvania: 73 percent) had a
lower rate of increase than the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.
High Growth States. Ten states enjoyed
increases over 100 percent in their
Amish population during the 16-year
period: Virginia (400 percent), Kentucky
(200 percent), Minnesota (156 percent),
New York (150 percent), Montana (150
percent), Kansas (140 percent), Illinois
(133 percent), Missouri (131 percent),
Wisconsin (117 percent), and Tennessee
(117 percent). All of these statewide
increases were above the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.
Slow Growth States. Several states had
sluggish growth, significantly below the
country-wide average of 85 percent:
Maryland (67 percent), Oklahoma (25
percent), and Delaware (13 percent).
Texas, with three districts in 1992,
dropped to one in 2008, a decline of 67
percent.
Reasons for Population Growth. The
primary forces driving the growth are
sizeable nuclear families (five or more
children on average) and an average
retention rate (Amish children who join
the church as young adults) of 85
percent or more. A few outsiders
occasionally join the Amish, but the
bulk of the growth is from within their
own community.
Reasons for New Settlement Growth. The
Amish establish new settlements in
states that already have Amish
communities as well as in �new� states
for a variety of reasons that may
include: 1) fertile farmland at
reasonable prices, 2) non-farm work in
specialized occupations, 3) rural
isolation that supports their
traditional, family-based lifestyle, 4)
social and physical environments
(climate, governments, services,
economy) conducive to their way of life,
5) proximity to family or other similar
Amish church groups, and sometimes to 5)
resolve church or leadership conflicts.
Notes:
1. Population figures (which include
adults and children) are estimates
calculated by using a conservative
average of 135 people per church
district. The number of people per
district varies by region, community,
affiliation, and age of the district;
therefore, the actual number of people
in a specific district may be higher or
lower than the average used in these
tables. Population estimates are rounded
to the nearest 1,000.
2. The data includes all Amish groups
(Old Order and New Order) that use
horse-and-buggy transportation, but
excludes car-driving groups such as the
Beachy Amish and Amish Mennonites.
3. Stephen Scott, Young Center for
Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, gathered
and compiled the data.
Sources: For 1992 data, David Luthy in
Kraybill and Olshan, eds., The Amish
Struggle with Modernity (Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England, 1994),
243-259. For 2008 data, The Young Center
for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.
To cite this page: �Amish Population
Growth 1992-2008 Highlights.� Young
Center for Anabaptist and Pietist
Studies, Elizabethtown College.
http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Popula
tion_Trends_1992_2008.asp.
Save This Page
Les Cargill
But that cost will be passed on in the price of goods. Sure, this is
a "hall of mirrors" of subsidies, but that's the net effect of this
one change.
And the overseas plant is so incredibly subsidized already....
--
Les Cargill
Napoleon
> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
>Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
>tomorrow's taxpayers.
Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life?
You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck
at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little
hypocritical.
No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO
BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It
certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least
socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
h
"Napoleon" <ana...@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:agqef5hbkq37u8fk3...@4ax.com...
OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states. He wants
the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
pockets. He says he believes in "personal responsibility" and then gloats
about the taxpayers funding his lifestyle choices.
SoCalMike
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED
>> for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more
>> resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>
> I guess it really depends on how you raise them. I'm going to raise
> mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and
> responsibility.
so youre moving to canada?
Ohioguy
Likely in the cost of goods we don't consume or buy. :-) Even if we
do end up buying or consuming them, I often get things at yard sales,
thrift stores, or when they have been marked down 40% or more at retail.
We try to keep our consumption of goods rather low, and as such, this
will help, not hurt us. If we consumed more than our fair share, it
might hurt us in the long run.
Ohioguy
As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
then get a return on their investment.
Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
> OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.
Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems
too dignified for the range of ideas you espouse) refer to most of the
US these days?
> the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
I want the government to perform basic duties. I would prefer that
they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already
buying a house that is going to be eligible, and I'm pretty well
convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats. They
would probably build a bridge to nowhere, or fund a scientific study
that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.
>But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?
Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such
as welfare, medicare, or social security. "sucking at the teat"
generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".
However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the
population. I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare,
medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.
This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a
deduction. Of course, I would much prefer that we have a flat tax, or
ideally a "fair tax". Either one of those would get rid of deductions
and exemptions. Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on
their consumption. The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything
would disappear, and the economy would benefit like crazy.
Rod Speed
>> At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in the short run, and then those kids turn into
> taxpayers in the long run.
Its very arguable whether indigenous kids are better value than immigrants as taxpayers.
> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
Not necessarily, particularly with the kids of welfare queens
etc. So many of them end up dependant on welfare too and
end up in jail, and are VERY expensive to keep in there.
> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business, then get a return on their investment.
Nothing like in fact.
> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy,
> and would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills.
Yes it does. It completely eliminates any possibility of being
bankrupted by a serious medical problem or accident etc
and eliminates any need to insure against those risks.
> It typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
It also benefit those with kids, because they have substantial
health care costs. In spades with premature kids etc etc etc.
And the vast bulk of the young end up old eventually too.
>> OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.
> Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems too dignified for the range of ideas you
> espouse)
You and your ilk in spades.
> refer to most of the US these days?
>> the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his pockets.
> I want the government to perform basic duties.
Doesnt matter what you want, there arent enough to want what you want to matter.
> I would prefer that they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already buying a house that is going to
> be eligible, and I'm pretty well convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats.
It never ends up in their pockets.
> They would probably build a bridge to nowhere,
Have fun listing all of those.
> or fund a scientific study that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.
Or fund the CDC which does nothing like that.
>> But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?
> Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such as welfare, medicare, or social security.
Its just as true of one offs.
> "sucking at the teat" generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".
Nope, they can be irregular too.
> However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
> available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the population.
Still sucking on the welfare teat.
> I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare, medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.
It obviously does that anyway.
> This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a deduction. Of course, I would much prefer that we have a
> flat tax, or ideally a "fair tax".
More fool you.
> Either one of those would get rid of deductions and exemptions.
Like hell the last one does. Have a look at the prebate sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax#Monthly_tax_rebate
> Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on their consumption.
Another lie. Those on the lowest incomes would pay a grossly unfair share of taxes without the prebate.
> The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything would disappear,
Yes.
> and the economy would benefit like crazy.
Another pig ignorant lie.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<RKALm.24235$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
>
> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
> then get a return on their investment.
>
> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
people because they would never spread
any disease or infection?
>
>
> > OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.
>
> Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems
> too dignified for the range of ideas you espouse) refer to most of the
> US these days?
>
>
> > the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
>
> I want the government to perform basic duties. I would prefer that
> they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already
> buying a house that is going to be eligible, and I'm pretty well
> convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats. They
> would probably build a bridge to nowhere, or fund a scientific study
> that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.
So you are an IMBYNY?*
>
>
> >But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?
>
> Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such
> as welfare, medicare, or social security. "sucking at the teat"
> generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".
> However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
> available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the
> population. I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare,
> medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.
>
> This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a
> deduction.
It is not "essentially" a tax credit, it
IS a tax credit and in no way similar to
a deduction. People who have no tax
liability, and that will include me,
will receive the full amount of the
credit as a nice check if they meet the
requirements, and for this one, it will
also include me. Almost makes me wish I
had bought a car for the credit.
Of course this credit is meant for first
time home buyers, which you aren't
> Of course, I would much prefer that we have a flat tax, or
> ideally a "fair tax".
Ah, a "fair tax"...who gets to decide
what that is?
> Either one of those would get rid of deductions
> and exemptions. Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on
> their consumption.
Which means it would be opposed by those
who have the most money and the most
power.
It would also mean a lowering of
consumption so the tax rate would
continue to spiral up while the
consumption continued to spiral down.
> The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything
> would disappear, and the economy would benefit like crazy.
Right. GM, Ford, GE, P&G etc would all
raise their prices to make up the
difference...they do have stockholders
that expect a nice return on their
investment
*In my backyard, not yours
h
"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-9761...@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> In article
> <RKALm.24235$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
> Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
>> >kids.
>>
>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
>> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
>> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
>> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
>> then get a return on their investment.
>>
>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
>> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
>> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
>
> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> people because they would never spread
> any disease or infection?
>
50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated. I don't think so.
I rely on something I call an immune system. I do not believe in "wellcare"
or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
so much.
Rod Speed
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
>>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with
>>> kids in the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run. It is a short term investment, with
>>> a long term
>>> return on investment. Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business, then get a return on
>>> their investment.
>>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor
>>> or take pills. It typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
>> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk people because they would never spread any disease or infection?
> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should
> be vaccinated. I don't think so. I rely on something I call an immune system.
Fat lot of good that did those who ended up with polio.
> I do not believe in "wellcare" or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care".
More fool you, particularly with infectious disease
and that magnificent protection against it, vaccination.
> If I have bleeding I can't stop or a broken bone
> then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not so much.
And its that mentality that has seen it so difficult to eliminate the remaining important infectious diseases.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-9761...@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> > In article
> > <RKALm.24235$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
> > Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
> >> >kids.
> >>
> >> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
> >> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
> >> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
> >> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
> >> then get a return on their investment.
> >>
> >> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
> >> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
> >> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
> >
> > So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> > people because they would never spread
> > any disease or infection?
> >
> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over
> 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated.
Actually you are at the lower limit of
not "at risk" unless of course you have
an underlaying disease or illness
> I don't think so.
> I rely on something I call an immune system.
I used to think of humans as monolithic,
lacking in genetic variablity. I now
recognize that the variability is much
more prominent than I thought. Which
means in any group of people there will
probably be someone immune to any one
disease/illness. Of course we subject to
so many environmental factors that we
cannot control so I suspect most of us
are victims of some kind of
disease/illness/poisoning that we can
generally shrug off and historically
did. But a 1% chance of flu immunity
multiplied by a 1% chance of not having
a precursor to some disease/illness and
now you are possibly talking about 1
chance in 10000.
I do not believe in "wellcare"
> or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
> I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
> so much.
Good luck