Warning, it could happen - Political Forum

superbug · 11-02-2006, 07:12 AM

Here is a bit from Boortz.com that scares the hell out of me.

Quote:

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember, it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats. They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher. Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month. It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low. Well, where there's an economic benefit, there must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street.

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math. You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits!

The Democrat plan is simple. Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership. The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak. Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same. After all ... it's only fair, right!

Just remember this. Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good." They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt. A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself.

FRYandBENDER · 11-02-2006, 08:38 AM

Yeah, I heard him talking about this yesterday. This is one of those I can't believe it, but then again I can believe it situations. Something has to change soon. I wonder what all they will be able to get away with before enough people get pissed enough to do something. This idea will not really effect me, but I'm sure it will effect my parents, they have had their house for a while now. You know, our government has it pretty good, they have it set up to where no matter what they do to us they can be assured that no one will do anything about it because most people are too comfortable; if they do get a group who prostests them they can ignore them and say well we appreciate your concern; and if they do get a person or group who does something drastic they can make them look like a bunch of crazies and arrest them; and all the while they can pretty much take what ever they want because we are an unlimited supply of resources for them.

superbug · 11-02-2006, 12:36 PM

I'm well off, but that aside, any tax increase will affect everyone. That's what the Democrats don't tell people. And I wouldn't consider them the party of the poor or middle class. They do more to keep them hooked on government than to get them doing for themselves.

Izzibeth · 11-02-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

Yeah, I heard him talking about this yesterday. This is one of those I can't believe it, but then again I can believe it situations. Something has to change soon. I wonder what all they will be able to get away with before enough people get pissed enough to do something. This idea will not really effect me, but I'm sure it will effect my parents, they have had their house for a while now. You know, our government has it pretty good, they have it set up to where no matter what they do to us they can be assured that no one will do anything about it because most people are too comfortable; if they do get a group who prostests them they can ignore them and say well we appreciate your concern; and if they do get a person or group who does something drastic they can make them look like a bunch of crazies and arrest them; and all the while they can pretty much take what ever they want because we are an unlimited supply of resources for them.

thank you for acknowledging that it is the "government". and not just "Democrats" or "Republicans". they all make out like bandits in the end... don't let them try to fool you.

superbug · 11-02-2006, 12:39 PM

Democrats are more likely to pull some crap like this. So yes it is the Democrats.

superbug · 11-02-2006, 01:00 PM

Can you define working class for me? I hear that word all the time and so far it holds no meaning. Anyone with a job (be it CEO or toilet scrubber) is working class.

The more my taxes go up the more I'm going to pass that burden on. Be it through higher prices or fewer employees. Either way I'm going to adjust for it.

As for unemployment rates I think the US has the lowest.

Coyote Says · 11-02-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

Can you define working class for me? I hear that word all the time and so far it holds no meaning. Anyone with a job (be it CEO or toilet scrubber) is working class.

Offhand, I would say the working class is anyone who cannot afford to miss more than four weeks of work without risking substantial loss of property or housing.

superbug · 11-02-2006, 07:18 PM

So then why do they get called working class when everyone with a job works?

FRYandBENDER · 11-03-2006, 10:08 AM

I would think that for the most part "working class citizens" are not the ones getting turned on by the promise of "help" from the government. Wouldn't that be the "non-working class" or the "refuse-to-work class" or the "having too many babies to work class" or the "too high to work class" ?

Otter · 11-03-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

So then why do they get called working class when everyone with a job works?

Because the 'working class' has to work pretty much continuously in order to stay afloat, and doesn't have the option of taking a few months off. It's somewhat sloppy terminology, I agree, but I believe it is meant to differentiate from those on one extreme who don't have to work if they choose not to, and those who are unemployed and on public assistance on the other.