Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 163

Thread: Draft report of the US fiscal commission

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Are you sure you mean Regular Savings? Here regular savings have an APY of like 0.25 %. And that's if you have over $100,000 in the account.
    Not true, it's pretty easy to find rates up above 1.1%. 2.3% is out the question for an unrestricted account, but CDs might get you there.

    Also, GGT - ARMs are the way most of the world works. In fact US mortgages are ARMs in that there is never a refinancing penalty, which means consumers can always reduce (but not increase) their rate. This results in banks instituting high transaction costs that generally don't help anyone. There was a Canadian economist who had a nice piece on the ridiculousness of US fixed-rate mortgages a while back, but I don't have the link with me right now.


    Onto mortgage interest deductions: it's just an enormous subsidy for homebuying, and quickly raises home prices (but not much else). Also, the deduction provides little real benefit for moderate to low income homeowners since it's not an above-the-line deduction. Given the cost and dubious benefits for most Americans, I'd favor phasing it out entirely, but at least the proposals in the report start with the most egregious problems. Obviously it shouldn't be done immediately, given that the housing market is already in the shitter and lots of people have negative equity. But slowly phasing it out over a decade or so would probably be a good idea. At the end of the day, it would help new (especially poorer) homebuyers as the price of homes dropped to compensate for the lack of a tax writeoff.

  2. #32
    I totally agree with a gradual phase-out of the mortgage interest deduction.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Also, GGT - ARMs are the way most of the world works. In fact US mortgages are ARMs in that there is never a refinancing penalty, which means consumers can always reduce (but not increase) their rate. This results in banks instituting high transaction costs that generally don't help anyone. There was a Canadian economist who had a nice piece on the ridiculousness of US fixed-rate mortgages a while back, but I don't have the link with me right now.
    Our US ARMs may not have a refinancing "penalty", but closing costs and paying points to buy down the fixed rate may as well be considered a "penalty". Those are the transaction costs that only benefit the banks and brokers. Plenty of people got suckered into this scheme. That's one way sub-prime mortgages, HELOCs with 0 down-payment were sold. "You can re-finance later at a low fixed rate" (buy now, pay later, paying later is always better). And millions who had their mortgage re-set couldn't pay, and defaulted.

  4. #34
    It doesn't 'help' banks. Without their high transaction costs, the setup of fixed rate mortgages in the US (with the attendant ease of refinancing) would make banks assume all of the interest rate risk. They pay for this risk by increasing transaction costs. As soon as we realize that there aren't free lunches wrt interest rate risk, our mortgage system will get a lot more reasonable.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    It doesn't 'help' banks. Without their high transaction costs, the setup of fixed rate mortgages in the US (with the attendant ease of refinancing) would make banks assume all of the interest rate risk. They pay for this risk by increasing transaction costs. As soon as we realize that there aren't free lunches wrt interest rate risk, our mortgage system will get a lot more reasonable.
    Of course it helped banks. Even with fixed rate mortgages, they passed risk off every time they sold a loan. They not only gained from closing costs, they profited from off-loading loans and securitizing them. They didn't pay for the risk, they profited from spreading risk around. The only true victim of risk was the mortgage buyer who was sold a load of snake oil.

  6. #36
    Anywho, I won't derail this thread any longer, even though banks selling mortgages are in the hot seat right now, and it riles me up.

    Back to the Debt Commission and other pressing national needs......

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Heh so what percentage of the population do you consider middle class?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

    Less then 15% of households in the United States make up the 100k to 200k range.

    Now if you look at 25k to 75k you get about 40% of the households. Numerically that would be closer to middle class.

    Unless you consider "Middle Class" to be "The top 20% of society not counting the top 5%" ? Thats hardly in the middle.
    Conscious derail bid rejected.



    @Wiggin: I'm missing something. Why are fixed rate mortgages so bad?

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Yes, let's rob the rich old ladies.

    /runz

    Edit: Yes, Lewk... I don't consider the middle class to be the median class. Also, than.
    Oh OK just to make clear you think a household must make more then 80% of American households to be considered Middle Class. What part of "Middle" do you like ignoring?

  9. #39
    By the logic of defining the middle class as the median class, the middle class in Rio de Janeiro live in carboard housing.

  10. #40
    Oh OK just to make clear you think a household must make more then 80% of American households to be considered Middle Class. What part of "Middle" do you like ignoring?
    Hey Jose, how about thinking of the whole country, instead of just your neck 'o the woods? If you took your Texas income to any urban metropolis like Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, or Manhattan....you'd be a pauper. Probably wanting help to pay for food or rent or transportation.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    @Wiggin: I'm missing something. Why are fixed rate mortgages so bad?
    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...dangerous.html

    There's two sides to the issue, but he has a real point.

    Nevertheless, this is getting rather far afield. NYT has the draft Powerpoint, and the more I read the less I'm content with things. While discretionary spending and Social Security definitely need reforming and cutting (and our tax code is desperately needing some fixes), the real elephant in the room is healthcare, and they really don't address it. Social Security is an easy fix, and discretionary spending was never really a problem in the first place. Outside some procedural reforms and tax changes, I feel like they aren't really addressing our real fiscal problems.

  12. #42
    Interesting article, wiggin. He didn't mention pre-payment penalties, which also makes a 30 yr fixed rate loan "suspect" for the consumer.

    Back on topic: Do tell how SS is an EASY fix?

    Sure, the heavy elephant is health care, but mostly because of our 80 million seniors expecting to use Medicare....

  13. #43
    Another interesting thing about this global austerity and sudden interest in budgets: when the UK slashed its military spending, it inspired a new thread. http://www.theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=1265]

    Now that the US is going to slash military spending, we find ourselves arguing about mortgage interest deductions?

    The US spends more on military than the whole world combined. [citation needed] Our first slashes should be in military spending. It should be deep and global. Only then should we look at slashing domestic spending for the poor, the very young or the very old. And (IMO) we shouldn't be paying trillions of dollars to protect other nations, while our own country is in decline.

    In the event of an emergency, apply your own oxygen mask before attempting to assist others.
    Last edited by GGT; 11-12-2010 at 12:16 AM. Reason: [...]

  14. #44
    Trillions? Do you know what the military budget is and what portion of it is actually being used to protect other countries?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Trillions? Do you know what the military budget is and what portion of it is actually being used to protect other countries?
    Do you know how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost us? Trillions. Because we have to add long term medical care for veterans. Just because it's not "budgeted" doesn't mean we won't incur costs.

    In fact, show us where our two undeclared wars of the last decade have been "budgeted". Go ahead, show us, prove it.

  16. #46
    If you're going to talk about the long-term, then Medicare is costing us tens of trillions.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    If you're going to talk about the long-term, then Medicare is costing us tens of trillions.
    So, you have no answer about the unbudgeted Trillions we spend in military. Then you say Medicare will cost us TENS OF TRILLIONS as a retort?

  18. #48
    Maybe you can provide a coherent and relevant comment first. Sure, it might cost something close to a trillion dollars over half a century. But that's not a very meaningful figure. We don't make 50-year budgets.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Maybe you can provide a coherent and relevant comment first. Sure, it might cost something close to a trillion dollars over half a century. But that's not a very meaningful figure. We don't make 50-year budgets.
    It was in the news a long time ago, projected costs of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions. And not over 50 years but over each decade. But you would probably dispute those figures if anyone like Stiglitz was named as a source.

    We do make 50-year projections about SS and Medicare, and set budgets accordingly. The numbers have been screaming deficit for decades. But we ignored them or kept thinking "growth" would take care of it?

    We're on the precipice. Who are you willing to throw under the bus? Where are your alliances? That's a fundamental question, and we all have to choose.

  20. #50
    I'd like to see a citation for that. The closest I could find was an estimate by some doctors that Iraq would cost $650 billion in veteran healthcare bills (over those soldiers' entire lives).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #51
    POLITICS | NOVEMBER 12, 2010
    Deficit-Cutting Chairmen Call Washington's Bluff
    By GERALD F. SEIB

    Perhaps you don't want to play poker with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.

    Mr. Simpson, the Republican and former Senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, the Democrat and former White House chief of staff, are chairmen of the federal deficit-cutting commission charged with devising a way to reduce the red ink Washington is producing. They oversee an 18-member, bipartisan panel that is supposed to come up with a plan by Dec. 1, provided they can get 14 of the 18 commission members to agree on something.

    That's a big if. But the two have at least increased the odds of success with the clever way they rolled out their own personal recommendations Wednesday on how to suck up that red ink.

    Specifically, they jolted the capital by laying out ideas to achieve some $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020. Look carefully at what they did and how they did it, and you'll see that their effort was designed to box in those on all sides who would rather talk in high-sounding generalities about the deficit than deal with the unpleasant specifics.

    That doesn't mean they will succeed, but their tactics have at least given them a better shot.

    Consider:

    —By offering even more deficit reduction than necessary to achieve the commission's target, they sent a message: See, it isn't THAT hard to come up with a plan, especially if you're willing to go after popular as well as unpopular programs.

    When the commission was created by President Barack Obama and filled out with leaders from both parties in Congress, it was told to devise a way to cut the deficit to 3% of gross domestic product by 2015, from about 8% this year. The chairmen went further and proposed specific spending and tax measures that would reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP.

    That allows panel members to dismiss some of the most unpopular ideas while still hitting the target. More important, it says to everybody that this isn't impossible by any means. We've shown how to not just hit our target, but to surpass it.

    —By making their ideas public, they made it harder for other commission members to run and hide. The commission now can't simply bury controversial or unpopular ideas. It has to say to the world that it has rejected them and take responsibility for having done so.

    —They have made everybody uncomfortable at the outset, which is necessary to be sure no group or special interest can feel singled out for pain. They proposed raising the retirement age (oh-so gradually, to 69 by the year 2075) for Social Security and suggested modest curbs in benefits for upper-income seniors and an adjustment in the inflation escalator for all benefits. That was enough to make liberals scream.

    They suggested more than $100 billion in defense-spending cuts by the year 2015, as well as an increase in the gas tax and a reduction in a range of tax deductions and credits, including the home-mortgage deduction, which was enough to make conservatives and moderates scream.

    —The two men scooped up all the good ideas on the table, made them their own and in many cases ratcheted them up. Mr. Obama, in a little-noticed comment about a month ago, said lowering the corporate tax rate might be a good idea. So the Simpson-Bowles plan proposes reducing the corporate rate to as low as 26% from the current 35%, in return for eliminating other tax credits and deductions. The tax rate goes down, tax revenue goes up.

    Similarly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates already has told his bureaucracy to come up with $100 billion in defense savings; the chairmen pocket those and go further. The health-care bill passed earlier this year created an "Independent Payment Advisory Board" to find savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending; the chairmen simply call for the board to come up with billions more. The Republicans about to take control of the House talk about finding $100 billion in domestic spending cuts next year. The chairmen see that bet and raise it, calling for $113 billion in cuts in fiscal 2013 and $204 billion by 2015.

    —The chairmen called the capital's bluff on a popular political dodge: the endless calls for "tax reform." A favorite tactic of politicians in both parties is to say that the deficit problem can't really be resolved until our tangled tax system is fixed—and thereby avoid actually doing something. Messrs. Simpson and Bowles say it's time to put up on that front by offering three different options for actually achieving a tax reform.

    All told, the chairmen still are in a tough game without a great hand. They are, however, playing it cleverly.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...106372530.html

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'd like to see a citation for that. The closest I could find was an estimate by some doctors that Iraq would cost $650 billion in veteran healthcare bills (over those soldiers' entire lives).
    I thought we'd already wrung that sponge out. But my memory isn't so hot.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...6Ko&refer=home

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I thought we'd already wrung that sponge out. But my memory isn't so hot.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...6Ko&refer=home
    Ah, one of those. We also killed over a million people in Iraq.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Your whole tax structure is different than ours, Hazir. So are your retirement and health care systems. It's almost comparing apples with....broccoli.
    You are mistaken, the tax-systems are surprisingly similar. The main difference is that we don't have a difference between state and federal taxes. Also, we are dealing with EMU limits on the deficit. Not fiercely enforced maybe but a relevant yardstick.

    The interest rates I quoted were actual rates for a standard savings account, no upper or lower limits and freely accessible.
    Congratulations America

  25. #55
    Well, differences between state and federal can be fairly huge in the US, Hazir. Just read Lewk's replies and weigh them against aggies. We can't even agree on what's middle income or middle class, because there's so much disparity by region. And it's not like we have a federal government that's actually governing.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    By the logic of defining the middle class as the median class, the middle class in Rio de Janeiro live in carboard housing.
    So again I'm just affirming that your position is that the middle class is made up of a small percentage of America say 15% by your numbers, and that the vast majority of America is "lower class."

    So the middle class is only made up of 15% of the population. Is that what you think?

    Hey Jose, how about thinking of the whole country, instead of just your neck 'o the woods? If you took your Texas income to any urban metropolis like Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, or Manhattan....you'd be a pauper. Probably wanting help to pay for food or rent or transportation.
    The data I cited is the national average not the average for Texas.

  27. #57
    So again I'm just affirming that your position is that the middle class is made up of a small percentage of America say 15% by your numbers, and that the vast majority of America is "lower class."

    So the middle class is only made up of 15% of the population. Is that what you think?

    The data I cited is the national average not the average for Texas.
    What's middle or average in Texas is not the same as middle or average in Massachusetts. Or Pennsylvania, or Connecticut or New York. That's the point you seem determined to overlook or distort. What's up with that?

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Back on topic: Do tell how SS is an EASY fix?
    SS payments are easily forecast because we control the growth in SS benefit per capita (as opposed to healthcare), and the demographic trends are pretty clear. The shortfall isn't too bad to start with, and slightly raising retirement age while slightly decreasing the growth in benefits is an easy fix that makes it solvent for the foreseeable future. There is no end in sight for healthcare cost growth, and discretionary programs (while a lesser concern) can fluctuate all over the place depending on the political climate.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Another interesting thing about this global austerity and sudden interest in budgets: when the UK slashed its military spending, it inspired a new thread. http://www.theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=1265]

    Now that the US is going to slash military spending, we find ourselves arguing about mortgage interest deductions?

    The US spends more on military than the whole world combined. [citation needed] Our first slashes should be in military spending. It should be deep and global. Only then should we look at slashing domestic spending for the poor, the very young or the very old. And (IMO) we shouldn't be paying trillions of dollars to protect other nations, while our own country is in decline.
    You're wrong on several points here. First off, while our military spending is quite high (though I'd dispute the 'larger than everyone else combined' farce, especially when corrected for PPP) so is the size of our economy. It's not a huge proportion of our income, though it is larger than most of the Western world (a reason IMO for the rest of the Western world to spend more, though, not for us to spend less). I personally feel we should not 'slash' the defense budget out of a misplaced sense of responsibility for our deficits - it's no question that defense spending growth has been largely reasonable in the last few years, and will likely turn flat or negative with Gates' new cuts.

    That being said, $100 billion off by 2015 is hardly 'slashing' the budget on the scale the UK did. The US has a lot more slack they can cut and $100 billion is not going to cut frontline procurement programs or manpower significantly (though I'm a little concerned about the future of the LCS program, the F-35, the future ground vehicle, and a potential destroyer replacement, let's be honest - I had those concerns before budget cuts due to a dysfunctional procurement system. Budget cuts will probably just accelerate the reform).

  29. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Well, differences between state and federal can be fairly huge in the US, Hazir. Just read Lewk's replies and weigh them against aggies. We can't even agree on what's middle income or middle class, because there's so much disparity by region. And it's not like we have a federal government that's actually governing.
    You seriously think there is no disparity between regions in Holland? Why do you think the cut off for tax-deductability was set at €1.000.000? Not because houses under one million are considered cheap everywhere in the country. The reason is that with a lower cut off in some regions (like my neighbourhood) virtually every home owner with a mortgage would be hit whereas in other areas people with nicer houses and higher incomes would not be affected.
    Congratulations America

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What's middle or average in Texas is not the same as middle or average in Massachusetts. Or Pennsylvania, or Connecticut or New York. That's the point you seem determined to overlook or distort. What's up with that?
    I doubt Middle Class is 100k to 200k household income in New York State either. Feel free to show me where median income is 150k in New York or Pennsylvania (ie MIDDLE) and agmenmus has a leg to stand on. Frankly if your in the top 25% of wage earners you cease to be middle class and are rich. If your in the bottom 25% of the income side you are the lower class (working poor or whatever PC BS you want to call it). The middle 50% is... *drum roll* middle class. Now feel free to propose a counter definition. But if it excludes everyone but the top 20% wage earners prepare for your definition to be ridiculed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •