Given: It’s not working hard or being smart that allows you to build a business and create jobs. When I say “create jobs”, what I’m really saying is “create taxpayers who fund government programs that allow roads and bridges to be built/maintained and pay teachers”. What actually allowed you to build that business was your access to education (great teachers), roads, and bridges. Fair enough…let’s run with that.
Logical Conclusion: Since everyone in this country has equal access to public education, roads, and bridges, we should penalize (tax) people who don’t create jobs (taxpayers). Since they aren’t fully utilizing the resources government has provided to them by creating more taxpayers or at least paying in themselves, they aren’t doing their fair share for society.
I guess you could say that not everyone had great teachers, and that’s not their fault. So should we further penalize those not-great teachers for denying these people their opportunities to get out on the roads and bridges and make something happen for the rest of us?
I’m not sure I like the logical end to this argument.
The 2% payroll tax holiday has been extended for a couple of months, and it will probably be extended for the rest of 2012. I’m guessing a lot of people don’t realize this 2% goes straight to Social Security–no other government spending is involved. Long term, that means Social Security isn’t going to be funded as planned. You can’t keep a pyramid scheme going ad infitum, but this may bring Social Security as we currently know it to an end sooner rather than later.
That may be a really good thing.
The longer people are taking the 2% home, the more difficult it’s going to be to convince them it needs to be withheld later. The longer people keep taking that 2% home, the more likely it is there will be some kind of Social Security reform deal cut to end the tax holday.
Here’s a possibility…
Bush 43 failed at convincing people that Social Security needed to be partially privatized. But how would people feel in 2013 if they were offered the option to save that 2% in a private account when withholding resumes? For those already saving responsibly for their own retirement, there wouldn’t be much resistance. They could break even by reducing their contribution to a qualified plan by the same 2% they’re going to be mandated to save. For those doing nothing currently on their own, they’ll be forced to take some ownership of their future instead of only relying solely on the current Social Security plan. Some may balk at that, but when you tell them they’re going to be taxed an extra 2% either way, they probably won’t complain much.
I’m guessing this would lead to some sort of means testing for Social Security, which we’re probably headed for anyway if we’re honest with ourselves. I’m betting I’ll never see Social Security either way, so I’d happily take the compromise of being guaranteed my 2% private account and having to give up the other 4.2% as a “safety net tax”. Well, “happily” may be a stretch, but 2% is better than getting none of the 6.2% I’ve had taken from me up to now.
Delaying Tax Vote Could Crash Stock Market – No duh. Can’t believe someone was able to write an entire article on this obvious conclusion. Though it was nice to get a firm date on it. Don’t see a logical reason it would drop below 5%, but markets aren’t logical in the short term.
What Happened to Yahoo – Bottom line–nothing was happening at Yahoo, so things started happening to Yahoo. And why is that when I change my Yahoo! password, my Del.icio.us password doesn’t change. Exhibit A.
If 2009 was the year of the foreclosure (and loan modification), then 2010 may be shaping up as the year of the short sale.
I’d say 2011 is more realistic, unless they are predicting a slew of short sales starting in Q1. Our experience with trying to purchase short sales is that they take a long time. How long? We’re not really sure, because we haven’t made it to the end of the process yet. But five months seems to be a reasonable expectation for a minimum, and that’s just for the bank to get back to you with a yes or no.
I’m interested to see what is going to happen when, by the time the bank responds to an offer with a “yes”, the house is no longer worth the amount that was originally offered. Because, some people think we’re still in a housing bubble:
Rental apartment vacancies are reaching record highs. Many segments of the housing market are still oversupplied. And the core demographic in the country—the baby boomers—are reaching the age where they’re more likely to downsize, buying less house in the years to come.
Throw in the tax credits, artificially low mortgage rates, and the fact that the fed is still buying mortgage backed securities, and it’s hard to make the case that the housing market is not still artificially high.
It seems like the easiest way back to a true(r) market would be for banks to sell off their bad assets as quickly and efficiently as possible through the short sale process. Quick and efficient doesn’t seem to be the order of the day, however.
More Regulation to Help the "Underserved"? – If a man was smart he would try to figure out where this will create a bubble, invest there, wait for the bubble to inflate, then get out before it bursts. If I man was smart…
Post Rapture Pets – No matter what you do or don't believe, you have to admit this is a smart business model.
There’s No Excuse For This – Windows mobile 6.5 – Just to needle @raowen: "It's an interim product, and a vain attempt to hold onto the thinning ranks people who still choose Windows Mobile despite not being somehow tethered to it until the tardy Windows Mobile 7 comes out, whenever that may be."
Moore proves Libertarians right – And being a libertarian is downright heart breaking: "I'd imagine it's like being a Cubs fan, except there usually isn't much hope for next year."
Luckily, there’s at least someone in the State Legislature who wants to run Florida like a business with things like cost-benefit analysis. For politicians, that usually means “how much will it cost the tax payers for me to get the benefit of votes in the next election?”
Again, your great-, great-, great-, great-, great-, great-grandchildren will be paying for this one.
Yet the critics of Tea Parties typical retort is “aren’t 95% of you getting a tax cut?” Well, I’m not sure how you feel about it, but it still doesn’t make stealing from your posterity to pay for it ok.