You need to slow down a bit and chill. I didn't blame corporate for anything. Reread. I didn't say "tax the hell out of them" either. I do believe that if you earn income either here or abroad that you should be taxed on it. If you're doing business here, then you play by the rules set forth here and benefit from the laws and rules governing business. Therefore you should pay a portion of the taxes. Companies that hide money should pay a share of taxes on it. Sorry, but that's the way I feel. I don't hide money; neither should they.
If you want to bitch people not paying taxes, find some corporate execs that hide money offshore and use every loophole possible including starting shady companies just to keep from paying taxes.
Sounds to me like you are blaming corporate America. You didn't name any specific corp; you just said corporate. Either way, I would like to know, do you believe in a progressive income tax then?
Originally Posted by Juiceweezl
Secondly, yes, the housing mess was created by all the bad loans -- people could all of a sudden buy houses that couldn't before. Nevermind the fact that they really couldn't pay for them. They had a loan. Next up, every developer and builder around rushed to capitalize on it. Houses were being flipped 5 times before anyone ever moved into them. The big builders were putting them up so fast that they had no idea the real costs of the structure. Prices continued to rise and at too rapid of a pace. No one cared because they had a loan and the economy was good.
Now fast forward to today. All those bad loans are taking over. People can't pay their mortgage and are losing their homes. Others wishing to buy are having trouble getting financing because the banks won't loan money (they're having trouble making a profit for some reason. I wonder why?). Meanwhile a surplus of empty houses develops because the building community couldn't just turn the switch off. Add in several foreclosures, and all of a sudden you have home prices falling. To make it worse, anyone on an ARM now ran the risk of the loan value being way more than the new price of the home. In other words, they couldn't get out of the loan because of negative equity.
Yes Juice, you are correct in explaining the end result, but you don't know how this all began and that's why you are blaming the people, not the government. What you explained is the result of bad regulation and bad moves of past administrations, and not just the actions of the people making bad decisions. I am going to paste this just for you and all to read.
From Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
Originally Posted by Liberty and Tyranny, Chapter 6
Consider the four basic events that led to the housing bust of 2008, which spread to the financial markets and beyond:
EVENT 1: In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to address alleged discrimination by banks in making loans to poor people and minorities in the inner cities (redlining). The act provided that banks have “an affirmative obligation” to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered.8 In 1989, Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring banks to collect racial data on mortgage applications.9 University of Texas economics professor Stan Liebowitz has written that “minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications, but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.”10 Liebowitz also condemns a 1992 study conducted by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank that alleged systemic discrimination. “That study was tremendously flawed. A colleague and I…showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.”11 However, the study became the standard on which government policy was based.
In 1995, the Clinton administration’s Treasury Department issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races to rate the performance of banks. The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches.12 The regulations also encouraged statist-aligned groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, to file petitions with regulators, or threaten to, to slow or even prevent banks from conducting their business by challenging the extent to which banks were issuing these loans. With such powerful leverage over banks, some groups were able, in effect, to legally extort banks to make huge pools of money available to the groups, money they in turn used to make loans. The banks and community groups issued loans to low-income individuals who often had bad credit or insufficient income. And these loans, which became known as “subprime” loans, made available 100 percent financing, did not always require the use of credit scores, and were even made without documenting income.13 Therefore, the government insisted that banks, particularly those that wanted to expand, abandon traditional underwriting standards. One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.14
EVENT 2: In 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured two government-chartered corporations—known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—to purchase (or “securitize”) large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making even more money available to banks to make further risky loans. Congress also passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, eventually mandating that these companies buy 45 percent of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes.15 Consequently, a secondary market was created for these loans. And in 1995, the Treasury Department established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage even more risky loans.
For the Statist, however, this still was not enough. Top congressional Democrats, including Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts), Senator Christopher Dodd (Connecticut), and Senator Charles Schumer (New York), among others, repeatedly ignored warnings of pending disaster, insisting that they were overstated, and opposed efforts to force Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to comply with usual business and oversight practices.16 And the top executives of these corporations, most of whom had worked in or with Democratic administrations, resisted reform while they were actively cooking the books in order to award themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.17
EVENT 3: A by-product of this government intervention and social engineering was a financial instrument called the “derivative,” which turned the subprime mortgage market into a ticking time bomb that would magnify the housing bust by orders of magnitude. A derivative is a contract where one party sells the risk associated with the mortgage to another party in exchange for payments to that company based on the value of the mortgage. In some cases, investors who did not even make the loans would bet on whether the loans would be subject to default. Although imprecise, perhaps derivatives in this context can best be understood as a form of insurance. Derivatives allowed commercial and investment banks, individual companies, and private investors to further spread—and ultimately multiply—the risk associated with their mortgages. Certain financial and insurance institutions invested heavily in derivatives, such as American International Group (AIG).18
EVENT 4: The Federal Reserve Board’s role in the housing boom-and-bust cannot be overstated. The Pacific Research Institute’s Robert P. Murphy explains that “[the Federal Reserve] slashed interest rates repeatedly starting in January 2001, from 6.5 percent until they reached a low in June 2003 of 1.0 percent. (In nominal terms, this was the lowest the target rate had been in the entire data series maintained by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, going back to 1982)…. When the easy-money policy became too inflationary for comfort, the Fed (under [Alan] Greenspan and then new Chairman Ben Bernanke at the end) began a steady process of raising interest rates back up, from 1.0 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006….”19 Therefore, when the Federal Reserve abandoned its role as steward of the monetary system and used interest rates to artificially and inappropriately manipulate the housing market, it interfered with normal market conditions and contributed to destabilizing the economy.
Originally Posted by Juiceweezl
You can scream EIC all you want, but that has nothing to do with it. In fact, bad loans and the housing crash have nothing to do with people that make a wage paying taxes. I'm just explaining this to you so you'll understand.
As for paying taxes or not...again, if you drew a wage, you paid taxes. If not, you will be caught...eventually.
My point wasn't that EIC = housing bust. My point was that EIC = probably didn't pay income tax, but instead got what they paid into the system back in the form of a credit. If you got a loan from a bank that you didn't qualify for in the first place, but b/c the government forced these banks to make the loan anyway, more than likely you didn't pay taxes, b/c you got that money back in the form of a credit (based on theory that if you don't make enough to get a morgage, your below federal poverty level.) Comprende?