Property Tax Prepayment benefit possible for some NH residents

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Maxum--an excellent question and a great point. I agree that it's all about retail sales.

As BiggD points out, the rich save much more than others as a percent of income. There's plenty of data on this, and it all points in the same direction.
As you can see in the link below, the middle quintile saves 11% of their income and the top 1% saves 51% of their income. So if a trillion dollar tax cut goes to the middle class, $890 billion gets spent, driving retail sales. But if we give a trillion dollar break to the top 1%, only $490 billion gets spent retail. So the best way to drive retail is to give the tax break to those still struggling financially.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...e-level-2013-3

Many of those truly struggling financially don't pay income taxes anyway so a "break" for them does nothing for them or the economy.

As to thinking that invested money doesn't help retail, that is naive. Companies that receive investments are able to hire more people or raise salaries or buy equipment (allowing other companies to hire people) to increase productivity that then allows them to raise salaries. Many of the recipients of those increases are NOT rich and spend the extra money they just got. We just had a banner sales year for Christmas. That was very likely fueled simply by the anticipation of better economic (business) times including personal benefits improving. Those $1000 bonuses we are reading about are buying TVs, home improvements, etc. Those bonuses are fueled by tax breaks and by anticipation of new investment money coming in from rich people who got tax breaks.

Investment is an essential part of the economy and directly and indirectly allows people to buy things.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Many of those truly struggling financially don't pay income taxes anyway so a "break" for them does nothing for them or the economy.

This right here.
No way should ANYONE get welfare for life because they CHOSE to have 12-15 kids and not work! We need to define a shorter term for welfare recipients. After 2 kids.... You are out of the program. You do not get 4, 5, 7 tries.

As to thinking that invested money doesn't help retail, that is naive. Companies that receive investments are able to hire more people or raise salaries or buy equipment (allowing other companies to hire people) to increase productivity that then allows them to raise salaries. Many of the recipients of those increases are NOT rich and spend the extra money they just got. We just had a banner sales year for Christmas. That was very likely fueled simply by the anticipation of better economic (business) times including personal benefits improving. Those $1000 bonuses we are reading about are buying TVs, home improvements, etc. Those bonuses are fueled by tax breaks and by anticipation of new investment money coming in from rich people who got tax breaks.

Investment is an essential part of the economy and directly and indirectly allows people to buy things.

Oh my

[Flylady]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

This right here.
No way should ANYONE get welfare for life because they CHOSE to have 12-15 kids and not work! We need to define a shorter term for welfare recipients. After 2 kids.... You are out of the program. You do not get 4, 5, 7 tries.



Oh my

Outdoorman....where do you get your informtion? As I see it the most conservative Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life. Women must have children, but no one cares what happens to those children once born. Seems to me if the government does not want to support children they should not force women to have them

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Flylady

Outdoorman....where do you get your informtion? As I see it the most conservative Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life. Women must have children, but no one cares what happens to those children once born. Seems to me if the government does not want to support children they should not force women to have them

You are spot on!

Our leaders profess to be Christians and probably know what the bible says about having children, here is one of many verses that are in the bible:

"Psalm 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate."

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You are spot on!

Our leaders profess to be Christians and probably know what the bible says about having children, here is one of many verses that are in the bible:

"Psalm 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate."

True - but alas the bible also says this!

Second Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

True - but alas the bible also says this!

Second Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

I agree with that quote but it doesn't take away from the fact that we will always take care of children whether it's from taxes or charity.

Supposedly more clarity and guidance about the new tax bill is going to come out in the next few weeks.

[Garcia]

Just curious - how many people are aware that over 90% of all entitlement money goes to seniors, the disabled, or members of working households? Not saying reforms aren't needed, they are, but the idea that the vast majority of entitlement spending goes to able-bodied people who choose not to work is misinformed and quite wrong.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Just curious - how many people are aware that over 90% of all entitlement money goes to seniors, the disabled, or members of working households? Not saying reforms aren't needed, they are, but the idea that the vast majority of entitlement spending goes to able-bodied people who choose not to work is misinformed and quite wrong.

Hmmm, your numbers sound off, but even so, 10% fraud rate is pretty substantial and a great place to start cutting.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hmmm, your numbers sound off, but even so, 10% fraud rate is pretty substantial and a great place to start cutting.

My numbers are on the conservative side - and while yes there is fraud and waste, one cannot simply assume that every able bodied person on welfare is abusing the system. A starting point for reform? Yes. But, a drop in the bucket when we look at the overall cost and the impact on the national debt.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Just curious - how many people are aware that over 90% of all entitlement money goes to seniors, the disabled, or members of working households? Not saying reforms aren't needed, they are, but the idea that the vast majority of entitlement spending goes to able-bodied people who choose not to work is misinformed and quite wrong.

Entitlement Programs also include Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance. I am not against any AMERICAN with a legitimate claim who has paid into the system utilizing the available benefits through Medicare, Social Security, or Unemployment. There are numerous examples of phony disability claims for Social Security which also entitles the recipient to Medicare at an early age.

Welfare makes up 10% of the entire Federal budget and in my opinion, based on my experience, 90% of the people collecting should be and could be working. There have been numerous examples of people using the cash portion of their benefits on cruise ships and at casinos. There is something about that that that makes me think these people aren't too needy.

A close friend had a part time employee and he offered to upgrade her to full time. She declined saying it would screw up her welfare. These things are happening every day across the country. The system has made it too easy to take the free ride.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Entitlement Programs also include Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance. I am not against any AMERICAN with a legitimate claim who has paid into the system utilizing the available benefits through Medicare, Social Security, or Unemployment. There are numerous examples of phony disability claims for Social Security which also entitles the recipient to Medicare at an early age.

Welfare makes up 10% of the entire Federal budget and in my opinion, based on my experience, 90% of the people collecting should be and could be working. There have been numerous examples of people using the cash portion of their benefits on cruise ships and at casinos. There is something about that that that makes me think these people aren't too needy.

A close friend had a part time employee and he offered to upgrade her to full time. She declined saying it would screw up her welfare. These things are happening every day across the country. The system has made it too easy to take the free ride.

The last point is valid and shows why the system needs to be reformed. I also know someone who declined full time work as it would throw off her benefits. For her, she would make less, and be further below the poverty line, if she worked full time than part time with SNAP benefits. She is perfectly willing to work full time and have her benefits adjusted so that she is not worse off working full-time, but the program won't do that.

Regardless, these are eye-catching examples of a broken system that help to prove individual points and perspectives but do very little to address the real problem. I don't know the answer, but I wonder how much could be put back into the federal government if we clamped down on both corporations and individuals who are abusing the federal tax codes (and the medicare/medicaid billing process) through fraud? My guess, and it is just that, is that from an economic point of view our country would be better off chasing down those dollars.

[Garcia]

A quick look says that the uncollected taxes amount to $400 billion annually with $235 billion spent annually on programs to support the nonworking poor. Quick math shows how we can continue to offer welfare and still come out $165 billion ahead! How do we make this happen?

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Garcia

A quick look says that the uncollected taxes amount to $400 billion annually with $235 billion spent annually on programs to support the nonworking poor. Quick math shows how we can continue to offer welfare and still come out $165 billion ahead! How do we make this happen?

The welfare system needs a complete overhaul to reduce the abuse of the system.

[TiltonBB]

If they are looking to increase the tax income they could get the first $1 Billion here:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/...owe-1-billion/

[Irish mist]

Can't say that I'm sad to see the new 1.4 percent tax on university endowments in this plan. About 60 wealthy colleges will be subjected to this tax. Harvard is expected to cough up 43 million dollars on its 37 billion dollar endowment.

When you allow your university to become nothing but propaganda- mills don't be shocked when the party you have been targeting with your agitprop targets you. I've always been in the camp that churches & universities need to be taxed on property & investments like the rest of us. So I find this new tax a good start.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Flylady

Outdoorman....where do you get your informtion? As I see it the most conservative Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life. Women must have children, but no one cares what happens to those children once born. Seems to me if the government does not want to support children they should not force women to have them

The government is not forcing women to have children. There are plenty of choices, among them birth control or abstinence. "Women must have children"? That is a choice, not a mandatory requirement for anyone.

Welfare was once a safety net but it has become a hammock and a way of life rife with fraud that continues through generations. The government must come up with a way to wean people off of it rather than continue to make it easy and more lucrative than having a job.

Section 8 housing is another widely abused government handout. As a landlord, I have had approximately 35 tenants who have had their rent paid or subsidized by the government. After getting to know their situation I would say 5 of them needed some help, the rest were scamming the system. Despite making numerous reports about the fraud, I could get no action from anyone in the system. The people administering the welfare programs depend on clients for job security. They have no interest in cleaning it up.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Flylady

Outdoorman....where do you get your informtion? As I see it the most conservative Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life. Women must have children, but no one cares what happens to those children once born. Seems to me if the government does not want to support children they should not force women to have them

I hear this canard all the time, I'm always amazed at the convolutions people will twist themselves into and the lies they make up to justify killing babies. I see variations on the above progressive talking point all the time and it is very dishonest. The people who repeat it are either dishonest themselves or very misinformed.