Well, since a couple of you mentioned it on here recently, I thought I would give everyone an update on our house situation. I think I posted something on here a couple of months back about how we were going to use a credit union financed home equity loan to purchase a house. That fell through. At the last second, the credit union notified us that, since we would no longer be living in our present property, the loan would be considered a "business loan", and not a home equity loan. The interest rate they wanted to charge was then more than 8%, so we said no. (it was all annoying, because I notified them from the start that we were purchasing a house to move into, not as an investment - so they knew from the start that we would not be staying here)
Anyway, after that fell through as a source of financing, we looked into getting an FHA rehab loan. We got set up through Wells Fargo for one of those, and then unexpectedly found a HUD home listed for auction. We looked at it, were impressed, and we won the auction for $60k. (house previously sold for $117k 3 years ago) We will be putting about $25k in repairs into it, which will be rolled into the loan. So our total loan will be about $85k. It will have new appliances, new roof, new water heater, new heat pump & heating system, new vinyl flooring in kitchen & 1 bathroom, new doors - plus many other things too numerous to mention as part of the rehab.
Anyway, we signed the documents, and have been in the process of getting bids for the work. We got an early bid for all the work, but then a family friend highly recommended someone, so we allowed him to come out, look the place over, and then I waited and waited. Finally got a bid from him, and then we prepared to sign the documents so that he could do the work. At the last second, he called and said there was a problem, that his work crew had joined the Navy. (yes, that is seriously what he said) After speaking to someone else, I found out that the real issue was related to insurance for the project.
Supposedly, he felt really bad about ditching at the last second, so he called a friend who lives closer, and told him to take care of us. This guy called me early this week, and I told him I was done messing around, but that the fellow from the 1st large company we had gotten a bid from was out of town this week, so if he could inspect the place, look over my list of necessary work, and get us a bid by today (Saturday), I would consider him for the work.
He seemed very gung-ho about the project at first, but after I emailed him a complete list of the needed repairs, he never followed through on contacting the real estate agent to look things over.
Anyway, I ended up feeling like I wasted nearly 3 weeks, partly because I wanted to support a smaller, family business, and partly because of my nature to want to keep hunting for a better deal. I was pretty annoyed, because due to this delay, we will probably have to file for an extension on closing, which will cost us a few hundred.
However, the upside from the delay is tremendous: I just heard that congress passed a $6,500 housing tax credit, which we can take advantage of! If we had picked a general contractor 3 weeks ago, and closed on the loan already, we would not have been eligible.
What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next year. Yippee!
>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This > means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child > tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next > year. Yippee!
Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
h wrote: > "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message > news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This >> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child >> tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next >> year. Yippee!
> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for > having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource > suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
RickMerrill wrote: > h wrote: >> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This >>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the >>> child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at >>> tax time next year. Yippee!
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED >> for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more >> resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the rest > of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that some > insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
Marsha wrote: > RickMerrill wrote: >> h wrote: >>> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >>> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >>>>> This >>>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the >>>> child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at >>>> tax time next year. Yippee!
>>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED >>> for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more >>> resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the >> rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that >> some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
> Well, since a couple of you mentioned it on here recently, I thought > I would give everyone an update on our house situation. I think I > posted something on here a couple of months back about how we were going > to use a credit union financed home equity loan to purchase a house. > That fell through. At the last second, the credit union notified us > that, since we would no longer be living in our present property, the > loan would be considered a "business loan", and not a home equity loan. > The interest rate they wanted to charge was then more than 8%, so we > said no. (it was all annoying, because I notified them from the start > that we were purchasing a house to move into, not as an investment - so > they knew from the start that we would not be staying here)
> Anyway, after that fell through as a source of financing, we looked > into getting an FHA rehab loan. We got set up through Wells Fargo for > one of those, and then unexpectedly found a HUD home listed for auction. > We looked at it, were impressed, and we won the auction for $60k. > (house previously sold for $117k 3 years ago) We will be putting about > $25k in repairs into it, which will be rolled into the loan. So our > total loan will be about $85k. It will have new appliances, new roof, > new water heater, new heat pump & heating system, new vinyl flooring in > kitchen & 1 bathroom, new doors - plus many other things too numerous to > mention as part of the rehab.
> Anyway, we signed the documents, and have been in the process of > getting bids for the work. We got an early bid for all the work, but > then a family friend highly recommended someone, so we allowed him to > come out, look the place over, and then I waited and waited. Finally > got a bid from him, and then we prepared to sign the documents so that > he could do the work. At the last second, he called and said there was > a problem, that his work crew had joined the Navy. (yes, that is > seriously what he said) After speaking to someone else, I found out > that the real issue was related to insurance for the project.
> Supposedly, he felt really bad about ditching at the last second, so > he called a friend who lives closer, and told him to take care of us. > This guy called me early this week, and I told him I was done messing > around, but that the fellow from the 1st large company we had gotten a > bid from was out of town this week, so if he could inspect the place, > look over my list of necessary work, and get us a bid by today > (Saturday), I would consider him for the work.
> He seemed very gung-ho about the project at first, but after I > emailed him a complete list of the needed repairs, he never followed > through on contacting the real estate agent to look things over.
> Anyway, I ended up feeling like I wasted nearly 3 weeks, partly > because I wanted to support a smaller, family business, and partly > because of my nature to want to keep hunting for a better deal. I was > pretty annoyed, because due to this delay, we will probably have to file > for an extension on closing, which will cost us a few hundred.
> However, the upside from the delay is tremendous: I just heard that > congress passed a $6,500 housing tax credit, which we can take advantage > of! If we had picked a general contractor 3 weeks ago, and closed on > the loan already, we would not have been eligible.
> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This > means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child > tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time > next year. Yippee!
I believe you are keeping the first home. If so, you own two homes. Of course you will call the new home your primary residence, but you won't be living there for a long time based on all the work contemplated. The rules I read were not comprehensive enough to be sure of eligibility. You must have checked them out already.
Ohioguy wrote: > Well, since a couple of you mentioned it on here recently, I thought > I would give everyone an update on our house situation. I think I > posted something on here a couple of months back about how we were > going to use a credit union financed home equity loan to purchase a > house. That fell through. At the last second, the credit union > notified us that, since we would no longer be living in our present > property, the loan would be considered a "business loan", and not a > home equity loan. The interest rate they wanted to charge was then > more than 8%, so we said no. (it was all annoying, because I notified > them from the start that we were purchasing a house to move into, not > as an investment - so they knew from the start that we would not be > staying here) > Anyway, after that fell through as a source of financing, we looked > into getting an FHA rehab loan. We got set up through Wells Fargo for > one of those, and then unexpectedly found a HUD home listed for > auction. We looked at it, were impressed, and we won the auction for > $60k. (house previously sold for $117k 3 years ago) We will be > putting about $25k in repairs into it, which will be rolled into the > loan. So our total loan will be about $85k. It will have new > appliances, new roof, new water heater, new heat pump & heating > system, new vinyl flooring in kitchen & 1 bathroom, new doors - plus > many other things too numerous to mention as part of the rehab.
> Anyway, we signed the documents, and have been in the process of > getting bids for the work. We got an early bid for all the work, but > then a family friend highly recommended someone, so we allowed him to > come out, look the place over, and then I waited and waited. Finally > got a bid from him, and then we prepared to sign the documents so that > he could do the work. At the last second, he called and said there > was a problem, that his work crew had joined the Navy. (yes, that is > seriously what he said) After speaking to someone else, I found out > that the real issue was related to insurance for the project.
> Supposedly, he felt really bad about ditching at the last second, so > he called a friend who lives closer, and told him to take care of us. > This guy called me early this week, and I told him I was done messing > around, but that the fellow from the 1st large company we had gotten a > bid from was out of town this week, so if he could inspect the place, > look over my list of necessary work, and get us a bid by today > (Saturday), I would consider him for the work.
> He seemed very gung-ho about the project at first, but after I > emailed him a complete list of the needed repairs, he never followed > through on contacting the real estate agent to look things over.
> Anyway, I ended up feeling like I wasted nearly 3 weeks, partly > because I wanted to support a smaller, family business, and partly > because of my nature to want to keep hunting for a better deal. I was > pretty annoyed, because due to this delay, we will probably have to > file for an extension on closing, which will cost us a few hundred.
> However, the upside from the delay is tremendous: I just heard that > congress passed a $6,500 housing tax credit, which we can take > advantage of! If we had picked a general contractor 3 weeks ago, and > closed on the loan already, we would not have been eligible.
> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This means that even if we already get our taxes > down to zero with > the child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us > at tax time next year. Yippee!
Marsha wrote: > RickMerrill wrote: >> h wrote: >>> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >>> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >>>>> This >>>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the >>>> child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at >>>> tax time next year. Yippee!
>>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be >>> TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing >>> more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the >> rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that >> some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
True, but it does improve the odds over no kids at all.
>h wrote: >> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. This >>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child >>> tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time >>> next year. Yippee!
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for >> having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource >> suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the rest of > us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that some insurance > reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she makes more money on her investments in 4 months than I make working all year. The day I can't physically care for myself I plan to check out. I have always paid my own way, just like my mother. She took off 8 weeks when I was born and went right back to work (university professor) in the 1950s. She retired when she was 65 because she could afford to and wanted to travel. I like what I do and so I will never retire. I don't have health insurance and don't need it - don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit the gym every day and see my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from working out, assuming she's in town. And before you accuse me of being a "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a 53 year old childfree female. I'm an only child of only children. If we could make that the reality (only or childfree households), we might be able to get human population down to something manageable, say 3-4 billion.
> "RickMerrill" <Rick0.merr...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message > news:hd4m8e$82b$2@news.eternal-september.org... >>h wrote: >>> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >>> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >>>>> This >>>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child >>>> tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us at tax time >>>> next year. Yippee!
>>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED >>> for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more >>> resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the rest >> of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that some >> insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
> Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she makes > more money on her investments in 4 months than I make working all year. > The day I can't physically care for myself I plan to check out. I have > always paid my own way, just like my mother. She took off 8 weeks when I > was born and went right back to work (university professor) in the 1950s. > She retired when she was 65 because she could afford to and wanted to > travel. I like what I do and so I will never retire. I don't have health > insurance and don't need it - don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit > the gym every day and see my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from > working out, assuming she's in town. And before you accuse me of being a > "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a 53 year old childfree female. I'm an only > child of only children. If we could make that the reality (only or > childfree households), we might be able to get human population down to > something manageable, say 3-4 billion.
> Oh, and PLONK! Breederific moron.
It is neither frugal nor green to have more than one child. Ever.
>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >> This means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with >> the child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us >> at tax time next year. Yippee! > You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone > else's money? Exactly what part of your "refundable credit" is not > theft? Surely, there still exists some small minority who still consider > theft, even when institutionalized, to be immoral. What the hell are you > teaching your kids? They'll do what they see you do, notwhat you say.
Plenty of kids deliberately avoid doing what their parents did.
> You are celebrating the core fallacy of the entire welfare state proposition:
Nothing to do with welfare, everything to do with an attempt to stimulate the economy to avoid another great depression or worse.
> That one person's "benefit" is confiscated from the productive > citizen(s) who actually _earned_ it. How are you any different > from a welfare cow squeezing out another bastard for the > marginal increase in her "benefits" ?
The obvious difference is that he didnt produce the complete implosion of the entire world financial system and is just taking advantage of one of the attempts to stimulate the economy.
> You wouldn't be originally from Massachussetts or California, would you?
> FWIW: You may be able to use the original "first time homebuyer's" > credit because in BarneyFrank-speak "first time" means anyone > who has not bought a home within three years. Unfortunately for the > bottom-feeders and societal leeches, that one is not "refundable". One > must actually produce something and pay income taxes in order to > benefit; what a concept. Unfortunately, this one is the same sort of > smoke and mirrors as the homestead "exemption" to local ad valorem > taxes: At the end of it all, the same amount of taxes must be > collected so everyone gets to pay more taxes to compenstae for the > bogus "exemption" or "refund". > The saddest thing is that the brain-dead gullible majority that > continues to fall for the lying politicians' lines of bullshit and > that keeps the same lying sonsofbitches in office > year-after-year-after-year because they've deluded themselves that > gummint is gonna "give" them something is even allowed to vote > because sometime in the sixties some vote-buying twits began > redefining voting as a "right". And it ain't gonna get no better....
You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.
> RickMerrill <Rick0.merr...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote >> h wrote >>> Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote >>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >>>>> This means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the child tax credit, we can have up to a >>>>> $6,500 check issued to us at tax time next year. Yippee! >>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS >>> for producing more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK. >> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the >> rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that >> some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where? > Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she > makes more money on her investments in 4 months than I make working > all year. The day I can't physically care for myself I plan to check > out. I have always paid my own way, just like my mother. She took off > 8 weeks when I was born and went right back to work (university > professor) in the 1950s. She retired when she was 65 because she > could afford to and wanted to travel. I like what I do and so I will > never retire. I don't have health insurance and don't need it - don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit the gym > every day > and see my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from working out, > assuming she's in town. And before you accuse me of being a > "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a 53 year old childfree female. I'm an > only child of only children. If we could make that the reality (only > or childfree households), we might be able to get human population > down to something manageable, say 3-4 billion.
Dont need anything like that. Not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
Even just letting those immigrants in basically reduces the number of kids they end up with compared with what they would have had back where they came from.
> Oh, and PLONK! Breederific moron.
Thats what little kids do. Put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, chant 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'
>> "RickMerrill" <Rick0.merr...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:hd4m8e$82b$2@news.eternal-september.org... >>> h wrote: >>>> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message >>>> news:c5iJm.7137$Xf2.5206@newsfe12.iad... >>>>>> What is great about this is that it is a REFUNDABLE tax credit. >>>>>> This >>>>> means that even if we already get our taxes down to zero with the >>>>> child tax credit, we can have up to a $6,500 check issued to us >>>>> at tax time next year. Yippee!
>>>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be >>>> TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing >>>> more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>>> And when you're in the nursing home with no kids to help you, the >>> rest of us will be paying for your care. But that is assuming that >>> some insurance reform gets passed ... otherwise you'll be ... where?
>> Umm, I'm not taking financial care of my 88 year old mother - she >> makes more money on her investments in 4 months than I make working >> all year. The day I can't physically care for myself I plan to check >> out. I have always paid my own way, just like my mother. She took >> off 8 weeks when I was born and went right back to work (university >> professor) in the 1950s. She retired when she was 65 because she >> could afford to and wanted to travel. I like what I do and so I will >> never retire. I don't have health insurance and don't need it - >> don't like doctors and don't see them. I hit the gym every day and >> see my mother 3 times a week, on the way home from working out, >> assuming she's in town. And before you accuse me of being a >> "youngster" or a "puppy", I'm a 53 year old childfree female. I'm an >> only child of only children. If we could make that the reality (only >> or childfree households), we might be able to get human population >> down to something manageable, say 3-4 billion. >> Oh, and PLONK! Breederific moron. > It is neither frugal nor green to have more than one child. Ever.
Wrong when you are in a modern first world country that isnt even self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for > having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more resource > suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
I guess it really depends on how you raise them. I'm going to raise mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and responsibility.
The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids. Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become tomorrow's taxpayers.
Also, without enough of them, the "social security" pyramid scheme will implode.
>Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get old enough, their house goes to a child or grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids builds on an addition to their house, called the "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there. While they are still able, they help with the grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids help take care of them. It also ensures that family history and beliefs get passed down. Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no expectations for sending people away when they become a burden. The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had to have diapers changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those same things later on.
> I believe you are keeping the first home. If so, you own two homes. Of > course you will call the new home your primary residence, but you > won't be living there for a long time based on all the work > contemplated. The rules I read were not comprehensive enough to be > sure of eligibility. You must have checked them out already.
Yes, we will be keeping our current duplex, and renting it out. Yes, the new home will be our primary residence, but we expect to be able to move in by sometime in late December/early January. The FHA 203k rehab loan stipulates that all the needed repairs MUST be made prior to us moving in to the property, and also within a certain time frame. (roughly 3 months of closing)
> You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone >else's money?
Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new $6,500 home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income taxes. Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes that was supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change another 8 years or so.
In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments, and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to take that deduction for another several years, and will continue paying the same US tax rate they have been for now.
I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits of building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while longer.
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS >> for producing more resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK. > I guess it really depends on how you raise them.
Nope.
> I'm going to raise mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and responsibility.
And they'll ignore that and decide that stuff for themselves.
And dont forget who will be picking your nursing home.
> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids. Although kids do take up resources in the short > term, they also become tomorrow's taxpayers. > Also, without enough of them, the "social security" pyramid scheme will implode.
Ohioguy wrote: >> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you. > I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get old enough, their house goes to a child or > grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids builds on an addition to their house, called the > "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there. While they are still able, they help with the > grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids help take care of them. It also ensures > that family history and beliefs get passed down.
No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
They're dying out.
> Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no expectations for sending people away when they > become a burden.
It doesnt always work out like that.
> The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had to have diapers > changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those same things later on.
It doesnt always work out like that.
In spades with the hordes that decide that the amish way of life is not for them.
>> You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone >> else's money?
> Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new > $6,500 home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income > taxes. Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes > that > was supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change > another 8 years or so.
> In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies > that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and > here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments, > and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to > take that deduction for another several years, and will continue > paying the same US tax rate they have been for now.
> I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits > of building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while > longer.
and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to you/us as consumers? You should put the crack pipe away
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else.
>and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to >you/us as consumers? >You should put the crack pipe away
What cost? As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and build plants out of the country. Now that change will not occur for another 8 years. So there are no changes in the short term.
If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices, think again. The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate shareholders, at a cost to the US government.
Ohioguy wrote: > As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and > build plants out of the country.
Wont make any difference in practice, because they do that because of the massive difference in labor costs.
> Now that change will not occur for another 8 years. So there are no changes in the short term.
And even you should have noticed that few low cost consumer goods are made in the US anymore.
> If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
Corse we do.
> think again.
No need, I know we do.
> The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate shareholders,
Pig ignorant lie. The hordes that buy low priced consumer goods ALL benefit dramatically.
> >> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
> > I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get > > old enough, their house goes to a child or > > grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids > > builds on an addition to their house, called the > > "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there. > > While they are still able, they help with the > > grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids > > help take care of them. It also ensures > > that family history and beliefs get passed down.
> No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
> They're dying out.
That must be the australian Amish
Population Trends 1992-2008 Sixteen-Year Highlights
Population. In the 16-year period from 1992 to 2008, the Amish of North America show an overall estimated population growth of 84 percent, increasing from 125,000 in 1992 to 231,000 in 2008. (Figures include adults and children.) This pattern of vigorous growth reflects the groupıs longer term trend of doubling about every 20 years. See Population Change 1992-2008 tables for details.
States. Amish communities appear in 27 states and the Canadian province of Ontario. Over the 16-year period, six new states (Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, and West Virginia) welcomed Amish residents. However, the newcomer states have a total of just 13 districts (congregations)less than 1 percent of the total 1,710 districts in 2008.
Settlements. In the 16-year period, the Amish show a net gain of 184 settlements (geographical communities). This is an increase of 81 percent, from 226 settlements in 1992 to 410 in 2008. New settlements are typically small with a few families in one congregation (district). Older settlements such as that in the Holmes County, Ohio, area include over 200 districts. Larger settlements may have several different subgroups (affiliations), whereas smaller settlements typically have just one subgroup.
Districts. The number of local districts (congregations of 20 to 35 families) grew from 929 to 1,710, an increase of 781 (84 percent) in the 16-year period. See Population Change 1992-2008 summary tables for details.
Big Three States. Historically, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana have claimed about two thirds of the North American Amish population. Their share of the Amish pie declined since 1992, from 69 percent to 63 percent in 2008. All three of them (Ohio: 60 percent, Indiana: 72 percent, Pennsylvania: 73 percent) had a lower rate of increase than the state/provincial average of 84 percent.
High Growth States. Ten states enjoyed increases over 100 percent in their Amish population during the 16-year period: Virginia (400 percent), Kentucky (200 percent), Minnesota (156 percent), New York (150 percent), Montana (150 percent), Kansas (140 percent), Illinois (133 percent), Missouri (131 percent), Wisconsin (117 percent), and Tennessee (117 percent). All of these statewide increases were above the state/provincial average of 84 percent.
Slow Growth States. Several states had sluggish growth, significantly below the country-wide average of 85 percent: Maryland (67 percent), Oklahoma (25 percent), and Delaware (13 percent). Texas, with three districts in 1992, dropped to one in 2008, a decline of 67 percent.
Reasons for Population Growth. The primary forces driving the growth are sizeable nuclear families (five or more children on average) and an average retention rate (Amish children who join the church as young adults) of 85 percent or more. A few outsiders occasionally join the Amish, but the bulk of the growth is from within their own community.
Reasons for New Settlement Growth. The Amish establish new settlements in states that already have Amish communities as well as in ³new² states for a variety of reasons that may include: 1) fertile farmland at reasonable prices, 2) non-farm work in specialized occupations, 3) rural isolation that supports their traditional, family-based lifestyle, 4) social and physical environments (climate, governments, services, economy) conducive to their way of life, 5) proximity to family or other similar Amish church groups, and sometimes to 5) resolve church or leadership conflicts.
Notes:
1. Population figures (which include adults and children) are estimates calculated by using a conservative average of 135 people per church district. The number of people per district varies by region, community, affiliation, and age of the district; therefore, the actual number of people in a specific district may be higher or lower than the average used in these tables. Population estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000.
2. The data includes all Amish groups (Old Order and New Order) that use horse-and-buggy transportation, but excludes car-driving groups such as the Beachy Amish and Amish Mennonites.
3. Stephen Scott, Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, gathered and compiled the data.
Sources: For 1992 data, David Luthy in Kraybill and Olshan, eds., The Amish Struggle with Modernity (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1994), 243-259. For 2008 data, The Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.
To cite this page: ³Amish Population Growth 1992-2008 Highlights.² Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College. http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Popula tion_Trends_1992_2008.asp. Save This Page
> > Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no > > expectations for sending people away when they > > become a burden.
> It doesnt always work out like that.
> > The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had > > to have diapers > > changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those > > same things later on.
> It doesnt always work out like that.
> In spades with the hordes that decide that the amish way of life is not for > them.
Ohioguy wrote: > > You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone > >else's money?
> Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new $6,500 > home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income taxes. > Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes that was > supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change another > 8 years or so.
> In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies > that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and > here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments, > and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to > take that deduction for another several years, and will continue paying > the same US tax rate they have been for now.
> I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits of > building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while longer.
But that cost will be passed on in the price of goods. Sure, this is a "hall of mirrors" of subsidies, but that's the net effect of this one change.
And the overseas plant is so incredibly subsidized already....
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:59 -0500, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote: > The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids. >Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become >tomorrow's taxpayers.
Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life? You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little hypocritical.
No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
|
