Archive

Some interesting taxation and income figures

  • BCSbunk
    ManO'War wrote: I am still waiting for PMs from the doubters, but as usual, when it is put up or shut up, the crickets come out.
    Just because you have a copy of the check does not mean anything at all. So she got a 10 grand check but did is she a first time homebuyer? That would explain it right there.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    BCSbunk wrote:
    ManO'War wrote: I am still waiting for PMs from the doubters, but as usual, when it is put up or shut up, the crickets come out.
    Just because you have a copy of the check does not mean anything at all. So she got a 10 grand check but did is she a first time homebuyer? That would explain it right there.
    What does it explain? The point at least from my perspective is that some people are not only NOT paying taxes, but also they are getting back unearned money when they file. Does it really matter what credits are responsible, the fact is many U.S. citizens have a negative tax burden.
  • HitsRus
    Oh let's see...she works at Mickie D's making minimum wage but she can buy a home big enough to get a $ 10 G tax credit.......hmmmm....
  • Footwedge
    Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "What is there to gain by lying on an anonymous blog site?"

    Well not to impress you, I think you are nuts.
    My wife thinks I'm nuts too. You and her should talk.
  • BCSbunk
    HitsRus wrote: Oh let's see...she works at Mickie D's making minimum wage but she can buy a home big enough to get a $ 10 G tax credit.......hmmmm....
    There is an $8000 tax credit for first time home buyers not 10 g. And it is not a matter of a home big enough.
  • queencitybuckeye
    HitsRus wrote: Oh let's see...she works at Mickie D's making minimum wage but she can buy a home big enough to get a $ 10 G tax credit.......hmmmm....
    As bizarre at it sounds, we're talking about the U.S. government here...:)
  • general94
    What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage. That is how I bought my home. If you can't do this, then you have no business owning a home. The 'first time home buyers credit' will only dig the hole deeper that we are in now, as MORE people that have no business owning a home will be tempted to jump in. Result, more foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.
  • queencitybuckeye
    general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage.
    Many factors, but one of the largest is an entitlement mentality where everyone should be able to own a home.
  • ManO'War
    Still didn't get any PM's...hmmmm, wonder why?

    And I have copies of dozens and dozens of checks that are 7 grand plus...that's an awful lot of people that are buying homes, lol.

    I love it when people on the internet argue with you, when they are just going by google searches and talking to "friends", while you are going by real life experience and reality.
  • ManO'War
    general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage. That is how I bought my home. If you can't do this, then you have no business owning a home. The 'first time home buyers credit' will only dig the hole deeper that we are in now, as MORE people that have no business owning a home will be tempted to jump in. Result, more foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.
    I agree. People don't understand that there are a lot of expenses into "owning" a home (and you don't own anything, the bank does, until you pay it off). There are numerous repairs, insurance, taxes, and general maintaince. Plus extra bills such as all the utilities, which when people rent are sometimes taken care of.

    Just this past week I had to pay the property tax, have a plumber come out to unclog the line that hooks up to the main sewer, and had my front gutters fall off from the ice, that I will have to fix now.
  • Con_Alma
    10% -20% is the MINIMUM one should put down.

    We saved until we could purchase our lot with cash. We then took a construction loan to build our house. At completion we had a 15 year note and I couldn't wait for the day we paid that thing off. I now have no worries regarding the expense of our home because the cash flow we have gives us ample funds to address any unexpected issue that may arise.
  • pinstriper
    How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.
  • BCSbunk
    ManO'War wrote: Still didn't get any PM's...hmmmm, wonder why?

    And I have copies of dozens and dozens of checks that are 7 grand plus...that's an awful lot of people that are buying homes, lol.

    I love it when people on the internet argue with you, when they are just going by google searches and talking to "friends", while you are going by real life experience and reality.
    Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless.

    Unless you can verify their w-2 with the check your claim is unfounded.

    If fact we really need to entire tax form for real evidence of this claim. Not sure how you cannot see that.
  • Writerbuckeye
    general94 wrote: What ever happened to the good old 10% or 20% down for a mortgage. That is how I bought my home. If you can't do this, then you have no business owning a home. The 'first time home buyers credit' will only dig the hole deeper that we are in now, as MORE people that have no business owning a home will be tempted to jump in. Result, more foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.
    Look up Community Reinvestment Act and all the sordid history it brings.
  • Con_Alma
    pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.
    Credits are better than deductions. Depending on your tax return a smaller credit could be a greater benefit than a larger deduction.
  • ManO'War
    BCSbunk wrote:
    ManO'War wrote: Still didn't get any PM's...hmmmm, wonder why?

    And I have copies of dozens and dozens of checks that are 7 grand plus...that's an awful lot of people that are buying homes, lol.

    I love it when people on the internet argue with you, when they are just going by google searches and talking to "friends", while you are going by real life experience and reality.
    Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless.

    Unless you can verify their w-2 with the check your claim is unfounded.

    If fact we really need to entire tax form for real evidence of this claim. Not sure how you cannot see that.
    What are you talking about??? I doesn't matter why they are getting these "refunds", the point is that they are getting them. And I know their pay history and where they work.
  • pinstriper
    Con_Alma wrote:
    pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.
    Credits are better than deductions. Depending on your tax return a smaller credit could be a greater benefit than a larger deduction.
    I understand that, but if you're moving up in house (so it's not your first) - you're shit out of luck. I'd rather be able to write off $55,000 I just poured into my custom build (and get back 13,000 or so) than get a credit of 6,500 or whatever it is. I just kept a contractor/subs/and everyone who worked on my house over the 4 months in work. I just don't think it's the government's place to give out free money in order to get into a house. If you save up, qualify for the loan, then why not be able to write-off that 20% you just forked over? What I see around here, or saw, is people getting 100% financing, closing costs rolled into the loan, and then thier 8000 back come tax time. Of course, these are on smaller homes, but there should be incentive I believe for those who are responsible and do the right thing. Just an idea.
  • ManO'War
    pinstriper wrote:
    Con_Alma wrote:
    pinstriper wrote: How about instead of a first time home buyer crecit of $8000 they let you write off the 20% you put down on your house? It would actually reward those who save and do the right thing in order to get into a house. It seems as though the system is always set-up to help those "in need", instead of helping those who do the right things.
    Credits are better than deductions. Depending on your tax return a smaller credit could be a greater benefit than a larger deduction.
    I understand that, but if you're moving up in house (so it's not your first) - you're shit out of luck. I'd rather be able to write off $55,000 I just poured into my custom build (and get back 13,000 or so) than get a credit of 6,500 or whatever it is. I just kept a contractor/subs/and everyone who worked on my house over the 4 months in work. I just don't think it's the government's place to give out free money in order to get into a house. If you save up, qualify for the loan, then why not be able to write-off that 20% you just forked over? What I see around here, or saw, is people getting 100% financing, closing costs rolled into the loan, and then thier 8000 back come tax time. Of course, these are on smaller homes, but there should be incentive I believe for those who are responsible and do the right thing. Just an idea.
    Agreed.
  • ManO'War
    I knew a girl in Florida who got her whole downpayment of around 1% by having her and her family members take out Payday Loans, which they had no intention of paying back.

    She got a nice house in Pinellas Park for $85,000, but I don't know if she was able to keep up with it or not (since I moved back here).
  • IggyPride00
    Look up Community Reinvestment Act and all the sordid history it brings.
    The real race to the bottom came when the investment banks got into the subprime game around the turn of the century. I am sure you know this already, but Fannie and Freddy were actually losing market share to them at the start of last decade, and it was the shareholders (not the government) of those 2 companies that pushed Fannie and Freddy to lower lending standards in order to compete as sub-prime is where the real money was being made.

    The whole concept of a GSE with private ownership was absurd because it the 2 parties (shareholders and government) had competing interests in how Fannie and Freddy should be run. In this case it proved to be a toxic mess because you had private shareholders who (naturally) are most concerned with maximizing shareholder wealth, while Fannie and Freddy were never designed for that so much as they were to be a public utility of sorts to keep the mortgage market functioning.

    What you ultimately had was an abuse of the government guarantee provided to both companies to write mortgages to anyone and everyone in the quest to increase profits.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless. "

    Even if they claim zero on their W-4, there are only so much taxes that are taken out of a low income paycheck. Even if the W-2 shows some withholding it isn't going to be alot.

    Once again, the issue is some people not only not pay taxes, they get payable credits upon filing, i.e. a negative tax burden. It has never been a secret.

    How many times does this have to be repeated?
  • Footwedge
    Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Do you have their w-2 forms too? Having checks is totally meaningless. "

    Even if they claim zero on their W-4, there are only so much taxes that are taken out of a low income paycheck. Even if the W-2 shows some withholding it isn't going to be alot.

    Once again, the issue is some people not only not pay taxes, they get payable credits upon filing, i.e. a negative tax burden. It has never been a secret.

    How many times does this have to be repeated?
    Where has anyone on this thread posted denials that people get tax rebates...or a negative tax rebates?

    That has nothing to do with the original claim by you and man-o-war that the EITC was somehow around 6K (your contention) or 10K his contention.

    Both assertions are patently false.

    I posted the link proving the assertions false. Others correctly pointed out that there are other factors that contribute to tax refunds. If you want to discuss the repercussions or fairness in minimum wagers getting cash supplements from the gobblement, then I would suggest to you....start a new thread about it.
  • Footwedge
    IggyPride00 wrote:
    Look up Community Reinvestment Act and all the sordid history it brings.
    The real race to the bottom came when the investment banks got into the subprime game around the turn of the century. I am sure you know this already, but Fannie and Freddy were actually losing market share to them at the start of last decade, and it was the shareholders (not the government) of those 2 companies that pushed Fannie and Freddy to lower lending standards in order to compete as sub-prime is where the real money was being made.

    The whole concept of a GSE with private ownership was absurd because it the 2 parties (shareholders and government) had competing interests in how Fannie and Freddy should be run. In this case it proved to be a toxic mess because you had private shareholders who (naturally) are most concerned with maximizing shareholder wealth, while Fannie and Freddy were never designed for that so much as they were to be a public utility of sorts to keep the mortgage market functioning.

    What you ultimately had was an abuse of the government guarantee provided to both companies to write mortgages to anyone and everyone in the quest to increase profits.
    IggyPride nails another one on the head. Well done sir.
  • ManO'War
    Footwedge, I'm still waiting for that pm, since you just basically called me a liar.

    Man up and admit when you're wrong.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "I posted the link proving the assertions false. Others correctly pointed out that there are other factors that contribute to tax refunds. "

    I know genius, I was one of them. If you can point out where I said the EITC was solely responsible for any refund I'll stop posting. Can you ignore me now, like you did FFT and QCB?

    If it helps, I'm not kidding when I say I think you are nuts. I don't respect your opinion, 95%+ of what you post is ridiculous (the 5%+/- I chalk up to a broken clock being correct twice a day), and I consider it an honor that you disagree with me often. You were one of one of the strangest posters on jjhuddle (along with your socks, don't think it wasn't noticed) and I give you credit for your consistency for continuing your efforts. But still, I think you need therapy. Why don't you just ignore me, it won't be missed.