Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 But they didn't pay off the couch. They still owed $10 on it... I edited my post above by the way. They did pay off the couch. They paid another $75 after buying the toaster. The default was on the toaster but since the account (and therefore, the balance) was aggregated, and couldn't be itemized, any default is considered in total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I edited my post above by the way. They did pay off the couch. They paid another $75 after buying the toaster. The default was on the toaster but since the account (and therefore, the balance) was aggregated, and couldn't be itemized, any default is considered in total. There's no forgiveness for the couch taker backers but do you think that it would be possible that the couch sitters could have kept their couch if they had paid enough attention in school to be able to read the contract they signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 There's no forgiveness for the couch taker backers but do you think that it would be possible that the couch sitters could have kept their couch if they had paid enough attention in school to be able to read the contract they signed? Talking personal accountability to a progressive? Thanks for the chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Fair enough. But there are companies that prey on the proclivities of the ignorant and the less sophisticated. Those folks paid off that couch fair and square and if they understood what a cross collateralization transaction was, they may not have proceeded forward. Some places don't deal in good faith. They employ language and tactics that are difficult for most to comprehend. Just like we protect those under 18 from entering into contracts by making them "voidable," the law should protect the financially ignorant from predatory practices that the reasonable person would have no reason to think are predatory. And these companies should be ashamed of themselves for not dealing in good faith. I'm about as free market/free will as they come & I agree with the court's decision and what you're saying here. The courts shouldn't step in to cure a bad bargain, but IMO that was just a sophisticated form of fraud. And since it was pretty clear the people didn't understand the terms (I didn't even know what a cross collateralization transaction was off the top of my head, & I aced contracts) there couldn't have truly been mutual assent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 All I got out of that article was that someone couldn't afford something, so they "rent" it. Before they pay it off, they "rent" something else. FWIW, you can go to the Goodwill store and pick up a couch and toaster for a combined $50. It blows my mind that people "need" fancier crap than they actually require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. The bottom 47% pay nothing, and most get money from the Feds as it is right now. The next 33% don't all live hand-to-mouth. So your argument fails unless you're talking about giving out more food stamps. That's a slam bang way to grow the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The bottom 47% pay nothing, and most get money from the Feds as it is right now. The next 33% don't all live hand-to-mouth. So your argument fails unless you're talking about giving out more food stamps. That's a slam bang way to grow the economy. That 47% is just crap. Anyone working pays payroll taxes. They also pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (many indirectly), etc. In addition, there are retirees including retired military who collect their SS and pensions--do they not deserve it? Did they not pay for it? Do you think they all voted for Obama? That line of Rushit is true class warfare. While there may be a group who relies on entitlements, it is probably less than 15%. The right can continue to delude themselves into believing that 50% of the population simply want handouts, if so they will continue to lose power. As for my argument, what's so hard to understand that you give tax cuts to working Americans who are struggling to get by? They spend all of their income. Aggregate demand is the central problem in the global economy today, especially for the US economy. TPS: Which ignores the reasons individual actors make micro-transactions, begins with the assumption that all investment (purchases) yield profits, and ignores that a product must first exist (supply) before it can be demanded. Also, you seem to be conflating the terms "modern economies" and "service economies", which is more than just a little bit intellectually dishonest, and the term "modern" has implied connotations in the language. You are guilty of ignoring the fact that once a "market for a product exists" then demand determines its continued production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 That 47% is just crap. Anyone working pays payroll taxes. They also pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (many indirectly), etc. In addition, there are retirees including retired military who collect their SS and pensions--do they not deserve it? Did they not pay for it? Do you think they all voted for Obama? That line of Rushit is true class warfare. While there may be a group who relies on entitlements, it is probably less than 15%. The right can continue to delude themselves into believing that 50% of the population simply want handouts, if so they will continue to lose power. As for my argument, what's so hard to understand that you give tax cuts to working Americans who are struggling to get by? They spend all of their income. Aggregate demand is the central problem in the global economy today, especially for the US economy. You are guilty of ignoring the fact that once a "market for a product exists" then demand determines its continued production. If this were true, counterfeiting would be good for the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Poppycock. The money kept by the top wage earner is either spent or invested or given away. All 3 generate positive economic activity. The act of saving money does not automatically presume that saved money will be used for "productive" investments. It will go to purchasing a financial asset driving up financial asset prices. Production of goods and investment in new facilities is driven by demand. You won't be in business long if you believe otherwise. If this were true, counterfeiting would be good for the economy I'd prefer lowering the payroll tax further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Over 70 million people are on Medicaid. That's 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The act of saving money does not automatically presume that saved money will be used for "productive" investments. It will go to purchasing a financial asset driving up financial asset prices. Production of goods and investment in new facilities is driven by demand. You won't be in business long if you believe otherwise. I'd prefer lowering the payroll tax further. The payroll tax funds Social Security. Remove that and wtf do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Over 70 million people are on Medicaid. That's 20%. Sounds like an argument for a single-layer system... The payroll tax funds Social Security. Remove that and wtf do you have? I guess you are unaware of the fact that politicians from both sides of the aisle have used the surplus funds generated since the mid 1980s to fund general expenditures. In other words, they don't treat SS payroll taxes solely as a source to fund SS payments. And, as we'll soon find out, those benefits aren't guaranteed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. You seem to forget that the bottom are not currently paying federal income tax right now, so how are you going to cut their rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 That 47% is just crap. Anyone working pays payroll taxes. And those payroll taxes are assigned to certain programs (currently underfunded) if you cut those you have to make it up somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 And those payroll taxes are assigned to certain programs (currently underfunded) if you cut those you have to make it up somewhere else. You maintain the current temporary cut in the payroll tax until the unemployment rate drops below 7%. You don't currently have to make it up. Payroll taxes being "assigned" to SS is almost a meaningless statement. Where did the hundreds in billions of dollars in the so-called surplus go? No one jumping on the typo yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 You maintain the current temporary cut in the payroll tax until the unemployment rate drops below 7%. You don't currently have to make it up. Payroll taxes being "assigned" to SS is almost a meaningless statement. Where did the hundreds in billions of dollars in the so-called surplus go? No one jumping on the typo yet... You maintain the current temporary cut in the payroll tax until the unemployment rate drops below 7%. You don't currently have to make it up. Payroll taxes being "assigned" to SS is almost a meaningless statement. Where did the hundreds in billions of dollars in the so-called surplus go? No one jumping on the typo yet... What unemployment rate are you referring to? The one the government claims or the one that actually reflects the amount of people out of work that want to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 What unemployment rate are you referring to? The one the government claims or the one that actually reflects the amount of people out of work that want to work? No disagreement with your point, but I am referring to the "official" rate used... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 No disagreement with your point, but I am referring to the "official" rate used... Why would you base your theories or calculations on what you know to be a false number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Why would you base your theories or calculations on what you know to be a false number? Theory is not based on the number. Theory can explain the impact on economic growth from various policies, and growth will impact employment. The choice of the particular measurement variable is not as important as whether the variable is changing like the theory predicts. I could just as easily focus on the broader measure of unemployment as long as the two measures tend to move together over time. In general, they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Theory is not based on the number. Theory can explain the impact on economic growth from various policies, and growth will impact employment. The choice of the particular measurement variable is not as important as whether the variable is changing like the theory predicts. I could just as easily focus on the broader measure of unemployment as long as the two measures tend to move together over time. In general, they do. So, you would suggest that we eliminate payroll taxes until the real unemployment rate drops below what? 14%? 12%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts