Economy

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek This is what SW does. He makes statements, then turns the responses of others around and adds his own spin, then turns his own words around to say he didn't really say what you thought he said in the first post. Since he can't really refute your argument, he turns it around to mean something he can refute. Oh....and then declares himself the "winner". There's no real logic to it, but once you realize that, it can be amusing to see what he comes up with next.

Silly. I've told you before that this is your problem - you talk alot of nonsense about stuff you have trouble grasping and then get bitter when people call BS with you. How many subjects have we seen you discuss here only to have you later reveal you have done little to no research on the issue at all and ultimately have no business talking about it in the first place? I'm just saying, as a reminder to you. This is why I didn't bother with your long post earlier in this thread (I think it was addressed to me). A wall of pink that goes nowhere.

Now, just to honor that tinfoil hat of yours, you do realise we are talking about my use of the word "insurmountable" right...? Okay.

According to you, while using this word, I somehow fit the following steps in while explaining my use to Micah.

A) making a statement,

B) turning the response of another around

C) adding my own spin

D) turned my own words around to say I didn't really say what you thought I said in the first post

E) Because I can't really refute the argument, I turn it around to mean something I can refute.

F) Declare myself "winner".

You don't think that sounds a little paranoid/insane? For your own sanity, read all this and find it pertaining the particular aforementioned discussion. In the meantime, I will do you the service of fulfilling the last step and declare myself "Winner".

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer But nice try at obscuring the truth thru nitpicking the time frame of the discussion over the mortgage default rates. Whats even MORE curious is that you had NO problems with accepting the credit card debt 60/40 numbers which were based on 2011 numbers as opposed to being "from a few years back". That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that CCD numbers fit your pre-conceived notions and the default rate numbers don't?

No, it wouldn't. Why would you find something even "MORE curious" as you put it, when I clearly did not specify a timeframe there, but did here? And when you provided me with the wrong timeframe I pointed out that I was speaking of a seperate one (even quoting myself back to you as proof). In the other discussion about the housing crisis, I was talking about a few years ago and made sure to mention this (of course I was talking about a few years back - that's when it hit). It is not that complicated, and I think you know that. It's also not my fault you didn't read my post. I certainly wouldn't call specifying a time period "nitpicking". I said that from the start.

Bear in mind you have been wrong already in this discussion by your own admission, as far as what you "think". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but now it almost seems as if you're simply becoming frustrated when you mess up and nothing more.

P.S. I also said I think the CCD numbers were different, but opted to run with yours for the sake of argument. Again, why are you not reading the posts you respond to..?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Silly. I've told you before that this is your problem - you talk alot of nonsense about stuff you have trouble grasping and then get bitter when people call BS with you. How many subjects have we seen you discuss here only to have you later reveal you have done little to no research on the issue at all and ultimately have no business talking about it in the first place? I'm just saying, as a reminder to you. This is why I didn't bother with your long post earlier in this thread (I think it was addressed to me). A wall of pink that goes nowhere. Now, just to honor that tinfoil hat of yours, you do realise we are talking about my use of the word "insurmountable" right...? Okay. According to you, while using this word, I somehow fit the following steps in while explaining my use to Micah. A) making a statement, B) turning the response of another around C) adding my own spin D) turned my own words around to say I didn't really say what you thought I said in the first post E) Because I can't really refute the argument, I turn it around to mean something I can refute. F) Declare myself "winner". You don't think that sounds a little paranoid/insane? For your own sanity, read all this and find it pertaining the particular aforementioned discussion. In the meantime, I will do you the service of fulfilling the last step and declare myself "Winner".

Thanks for proving my point. I knew I could count on you.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior No, it wouldn't. Why would you find something even "MORE curious" as you put it, when I clearly did not specify a timeframe there, but did here? And when you provided me with the wrong timeframe I pointed out that I was speaking of a seperate one (even quoting myself back to you as proof). In the other discussion about the housing crisis, I was talking about a few years ago and made sure to mention this (of course I was talking about a few years back - that's when it hit). It is not that complicated, and I think you know that. It's also not my fault you didn't read my post. I certainly wouldn't call specifying a time period "nitpicking". I said that from the start.

What you said was this:

I also question this new statement about the "overwhelming majority" not defaulting on loans, especially in the last few years with the market crisis. "Overwhelming" suggests like 80% to me. I'd go with (at the least) an underwhelming amount similiar to the 60/40 below, personally.

So after the comments from you about which time you REALLY meant, I went back and offered three links showing that the default rates over the ENTIRE time period from 2001 to YTD were within a fairly tight range over ~2 to 4%. So they never came anywhere close to a 40% rate. Therefore the % of mortgages that were not in default was somewhere around 96 - 98% during the ENTIRE time frame. No matter which specific time frame you want to pick from 2001 to 2011, that sounds like an overwhelming majority to me. Yet you chose to ignore that information and continue to make this about time period we are discussing. Heck you don't even COMMENT on them. And you accuse me of not reading YOUR posts?

Do you simply NOT believe those numbers?

..... it almost seems as if you're simply becoming frustrated

Heck yes. That's the trouble with our back and forth. You are quick on opinion and very short on hard numbers to support them. It's frustrating when one side relies solely on opinion and doesn't offer a single solid piece of proof to support their opinions. Sorry but that's the way I see this. You're awful quick to accept portions of what I offer that support those opinions but either ignore or fail to provide counter evidence of the ones that don't.

And yes I "messed up". But not in the way you think. Those 60/40 numbers DID surprise me but at least I DID pass them on. But in quoting them I forgot one important detail. What I neglected was this: Those numbers apply ONLY to card holders. Approximately 25% of all households in the US have ZERO credit cards, and the number of individuals with zero credit cards is actually higher still. Those numbers HAVE to be taken into account because they directly affect the % of how many people are overextended due to CCD.. So the real breakdown looks like this:

70% = % of people with no revolving credit card debt (25% with no card + 75% of the 60% who pay in full each month)
30% = % of people with revolving credit card debt (75% of the 40%)
20% = % of people with revolving credit card debt EXCLUDING debt due to catastrophic medical expenses (2/3 x 75% x 40%)

Now I don't buy into the argument that catastrophic medical expenses are an indicator of a person's inability to manage their money. Since the report didn't quantify the TYPE of medical expenses it's not clear if the entire category should be included. But even if you do, the 40% number is still too high and is 30% max. Which means that 70% are NOT overextended in ANY fashion.

Further, by lumping everyone in that 30% together, it does NOT account for the spread in the distribution of debt from the median values. Of that 30%, some will be significantly overextended and others much closer to making ends meet. Still, overextended is overextended but it ignores the spread of the debt load. And that makes a world of difference between someone who is only carry small marginal debt load and the person who is in massive debt.

P.S. I also said I think the CCD numbers were different, but opted to run with yours for the sake of argument. Again, why are you not reading the posts you respond to..?

I am reading your posts. Stop acting like I'm not. Actually you said "While I personally think the numbers to even be a little higher ....". In the interest of not pushing that further I simply let it slide. Now that I realize that the 60/40 split was flawed and is no worse than 70/30 I decided to re-open that topic.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer What you said was this: Yet you chose to ignore that information and continue to make this about time period we are discussing. Heck you don't even COMMENT on them. And you accuse me of not reading YOUR posts? Do you simply NOT believe those numbers?

With respect, you lack clarity. For example, I just finished responding earlier to comments you made about how this is curious and is it because it fits my own POV. Then you, (here) suddenly act like your only input was stats and links. It wasn't. Look up. You devoted whole paragraphs to comments like "nice try obscuring the truth" etc. or my specific use of a word etc. Which btw I have no problem with and am content to respond to. But to come back and pretend you are above it all and ask why I am ignoring information? lol. This is disingenuous. I am busy explaining my use of insurmountable to you because you contested it. Or reiterating that I was talking about data during the last few years as opposed to this year because you started acting like I played a dirty trick on you and mentioned a time-frame in really fine print. I mean...honestly you don't see that?

Heck yes. That's the trouble with our back and forth. You are quick on opinion and very short on hard numbers to support them. It's frustrating when one side relies solely on opinion and doesn't offer a single solid piece of proof to support their opinions. Sorry but that's the way I see this. You're awful quick to accept portions of what I offer that support those opinions but either ignore or fail to provide counter evidence of the ones that don't.

See, now here you reveal yourself. Armed with faux conclusions, it explains why your posts come off as frustrated and imapatient from the beginning. I would submit that you insert far more opinion and emotional bias than you care to admit. If you recall, you started in with me - not the reverse. And, if characterizing me as you have done above allows you to justify yourself and carry on, then more power to you. But I now see why this discussion has gone nowhere and will continue to do so. Not that it wasn't interesting (bizzare, even).

[Felix The Assassin]

Chicanery at it's worst!

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior With respect, you lack clarity.

*I* lack clarity?

Might I remind you that as far back as post #16 , you made this comment and I've outlined the salient points:

As for overspending while servicing a debt, in these troubled times many are faced with losing their homes, and have no choice but to. Instead, many we see now are choosing to inscrease their debt, in exchange for immediate security. Thousands have compromised this way in the last few years. It's the reason they're not milling about on the streets.

And again in post #22

There are times this is warranted. Desperate times, like the ones we live in.

and in post #24

As for the majority of people in this economy not being overextended, I think you are out of touch

Notice the tense in the cyan highlighted sections. Those are all PRESENT tense. "In these troubled times" "are faced with" "now are choosing". "we live in" "this economy" "being". You didn't say "in past times", were faced with. were choosing or lived in, past economy or "were" overextended. All of which would clearly have indicated past tense. It's only the last part of post 16 that you made reference to "the last few years". And in the context of using the present tense in your OTHER comments, including those AFTER that post. even "the last few years" could have been interpreted as including past years up to and including present day.

So those comments would have seemed to indicate that a discussion of current economic situations was not specifically excluded and that the discussion was NOT limited specifically to the past, let alone to the economics of any specific prior time period.

But now you claim that it was only the past few years that you were referring to? NOW who is being disingenuous? Now who lacks clarity?

It seems to me that you are simply trying to discredit the facts that don't fit your POV by claiming that *I* somehow got it wrong. Maybe that's not the case, but it sure does look that way from where I am sitting.

SW, your posts lack substance. You're certainly entitled to your POV and your opinions. But unless you can support them they are JUST that, opinions. NOT facts.

Again, not once during this discourse have you even attempted to offer a single piece of factual counter evidence to support your POV. Not one single link with supporting numbers. Not even numbers gleaned from sources and posted with attribution but no links. That's fine. But don't expect people to accept opinions as fact unless you can back them up.

And that's why this part of your last comment is dead on.

..... this discussion has gone nowhere and will continue to do so.

Too true. So unless you want to re-open the discussion with some hard numbers, let's just end it. The back and forth discussion has ceased to be anywhere on topic and has gotten personal. No point in continuing it on those grounds.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer *I* lack clarity? Might I remind you that as far back as post #16 , you made this comment and I've outlined the salient points: And again in post #22 and in post #24 Notice the tense in the cyan highlighted sections. Those are all PRESENT tense. "In these troubled times" "are faced with" "now are choosing". "we live in" "this economy" "being". You didn't say "in past times", were faced with. were choosing or lived in, past economy or "were" overextended. All of which would clearly have indicated past tense. It's only the last part of post 16 that you made reference to "the last few years". And in the context of using the present tense in your OTHER comments, including those AFTER that post. even "the last few years" could have been interpreted as including past years up to and including present day. But now you claim that it was only the past few years that you were referring to? NOW who is being disingenuous? Now who lacks clarity? It seems to me that you are simply trying to discredit the facts that don't fit your POV by claiming that *I* somehow got it wrong. Maybe that's not the case, but it sure does look that way from where I am sitting.

Lol Micah, level with me here. Are you pulling my leg or are you actually being serious? I have to admit this is making me laugh now. I am torn between you genuinely misconstruing the very obvious or just attempting to turn something into that which it is not in an effort to possibly save face or somethin'..? Idk, but either way I am bewildered and entertained at the same time. I feel like I am truly in the vortex because I keep responding to your accusations about "trying to discredit the facts that don't fit your POV" and you just keep repeating yourself. I cannot discredit that which we haven't discussed yet.

You seem to have this weird move, where you attempt to use stuff that is no way connected to a point you're making as evidence toward said point. All those things you highlighted from my posts are true (true as in, I said them). I am finding it hard to even believe you're missing this because you are actually now quoting me back.

But please, let's not pretend you can't observe the distinction when someone's talking about the economy in general, especially when they're saying things like "these are hard times" or "people are living beyond their means in these times" etc. and then switching to a particular area and remarking on how things were bad in real estate during the last few years? This is not some epic transition (or maybe you think it is?). Again, clearly defined "housing crisis" & "last few years". Reiterated yet again when presented with an article about this year rather than specified years. Not that complicated.

So those comments would have seemed to indicate that a discussion of current economic situations was not specifically excluded and that the discussion was NOT limited specifically to the past, let alone to the economics of any specific prior time period.

Look, there's the move. Blink and you miss it. No...those comments wouldn't indicate that, why would you even think they would lol? What would indicate a shift in the time I am referring to is if, oh idk..maybe I inserted "the last few years" in there? Then you could go ahead and safely assume I am not talking about the present anymore. But to keep acting like I didn't mention that. I repeat, what excludes the comment is that I said "in the last few years". Once again, you presented me with this year, I in turn reminded you I was talking about the last few years. This is very basic stuff.

SW, your posts lack substance. You're certainly entitled to your POV and your opinions. But unless you can support them they are JUST that, opinions. NOT facts. Again, not once during this discourse have you even attempted to offer a single piece of factual counter evidence to support your POV. Not one single link with supporting numbers. Not even numbers gleaned from sources and posted with attribution but no links. That's fine. But don't expect people to accept opinions as fact unless you can back them up.

Micah...lol, see this is where I keep thinking if you're having me on. I am supporting them. You're arguing with me about things I said, and I am quoting you or me and attempting to explain to you what I said. I have done so at least three times now on one particular point. Why do you keep asking me to provide links with supporting numbers when the bulk of our conversation is me sorting through your warped assumptions and interpretations about what I said lol? Why would I need charts and links and numbers for that? You're talking like we even had a chance to have a rational conversation or exchange of data - i'm still sifting through the vortex as you tell me what I meant by this & that. And to make matters worse, during the small portion of topical exchange that we actually did have on these issues, you had no data. You then went to research after refuting my statements, and then confessed you were wrong! Wtf? You don't see how this appears...questionable at best?

Too true. So unless you want to re-open the discussion with some hard numbers, let's just end it. The back and forth discussion has ceased to be anywhere on topic and has gotten personal. No point in continuing it on those grounds.

How could you re-open a discussion that isn't a discussion to begin with? And then lol, to re-open a discussion with "hard numbers"? Dude, you were wrong on the first numbers, proven so by your own (late) research, and then you presented me with the wrong numbers - pertaining to a time period I clearly didn't reference, and then you start acting like I never stated a time period to begin with, or if I did, it was a different one (?). Hard numbers are obviously not in the cards, lol. This is like the war on logic. You have to sit back and chuckle at the ridiculousness of it, come on.

As far as things getting personal, I don't even feel that. Maybe it feels personal to you but I am more in awe and bewildered by your commentary than I am offended by it. Again, it was you came in all angry - not me. IDK you from adam really so this is nothing more than an interesting spectacle to take part in, in my eyes.

[Lord of Alcohol]

The more pressing question is if they will end the NFL lockout this week. Word is they are close to an agreement.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis So, when some idiot like the Orange Boner guy says tax hikes are not off the table, well he's not living in reality.

I agree with you TL. But just not in the way those tax hikes should be implemented.

Here's a chart I found. It's slightly dated (from 2007) but I think it's still pertinent. If anyone has more recent data



Source: IRS, US Census Bureau, usgovernmentrevenue.com, PonderingFinance.com analysis

Here's the link for the original article: http://ponderingfinance.com/

A couple of things pop out immediately. As expected, the share of income paid to Federal income taxes ratchets up based on the progressive nature of the tax code. And the portion of income allocated to State income taxes follows the same trend. Excluding for the moment the issue of whether those tax rates are high enough across the board, at least the progressive nature of the tax system seems to be working - mostly. (more on that list bit later)

Surprisingly (or perhaps not), in spite of the progressive fed and state income taxes, the relative percentage of taxes paid by all income groups has only a fairly narrow spread. Varying by only +/- 3% from a median value of 30%. Further, the upper 1% actually see a drop in tax load compared the next lower income group.

Well, the disparity between the upper 1% and the next 4% is due to two causes.

The first is capital gains tax benefits. Of the $700 billion in long-term capital gains reported to the IRS in 2007, $580 billion (over 80%) were earned by the top 1% of households. Since these capital gains are taxed at 15% (versus the 35% top income tax rate), they lower the effective Federal tax rate paid by the top 1%.

The second is due to the cap on taxable income subject to social security taxes. The % of total tax load is actually decreasing as income increases. As of TY 2007, the maximum income subject to SS withholding was 97,500. For TY 2011, that income level was increased to 106,500. However, the maximum contributions that could be taken out were reduced to $11,107.20.

If you buy into the very nature of the progressive tax system, then the manner in which those two features are being implemented is simply NOT in alignment with that system. And as I pointed out in my first post, removing the SS income limits and capital gain tax breaks would increase tax revenue by ~250 Billion dollars a year. (That's over 3.5 times the revenue gained from eliminating the tax breaks for incomes over 250k).

On a separate note, I expected to see an increase in the portion of taxes due to sales taxes as well. It's exactly the opposite. The portion of income that a family loses to sales taxes peaks at ~7% for the vary lowest income groups and drops uniformally to ~2% at the very highest income groups. That would seem to argue that replacing a progressive income tax with a national consumption based sales tax (or VAT) would actually increase the relative tax burden of the lower income group when compared to higher income groups. I realize that's VERY simplistic so if there is something I am missing there, please let me know.

So, if tax hikes should be on the table - let's start by correcting the relative disparity in the components that are most out of whack (capital gains and SS taxes) before we increase the tax rates across the board.

PS: I ignored the issue of property taxes in this discussion. It's not surprising that they drop as a % of income as you climb income brackets. I don't see any disparities in those numbers so I left them out of the discussion.