Geothermal heating -- worth considering?

Page 3 of 7  


The Republican party of today is not the Republican party of 1996. You now have the Tea Party folks restoring some sanity. It's kind of funny that the libs think the Republicans would kick everyone off of Medicare and end Social Security, but it's a far fetch to think they would end a free cell phone program? It also depends obviously on what it takes to get rid of it. If the Republicans could just push a button and do it, then I bet they would. But in the real world, we know it's not that simple. You have only so much political capital to expend to get what you want. You have to prioritize. So, if you're saying the Republicans from a practical standpoint would not likely deem it important enough to start a big battle over, I would agree with that.

Yes, we already have too much of that in the form of welfare, medicaid, loads of people collecting SS disability who could work, etc. I don't see a cell phone as being an entitlement necessity. I bet if you did a study you'd find that a majority of those receiving that free cell phone service have other phones in the family and or a landline, etc. I bet you'd find nth generation welfare families, where not only mon has the free phone, but so too does the daughter with two kids and no father. Maybe YOU want to support that, but I don't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1) If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, is government mandated like a tax, it's a tax. Because government doesn't touch the money is irrelevant.
2) She credits Obama with giving her the phone. "Free". Reality doesn't matter.
3) People like "free" things. ...so much so that they'll stop working for them. What happens when everyone is demanding their "free" things?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

For you, reality doesn't matter. Fact is that it started with rural people screaming bloody hell and murder because they would have to pay more than city people for telephone service. Now it is poor people in cities who get the benefit, it is suddenly a despiccable freebie.

Seems you condone lies, but I know better than that ...

It's a free enterprise thing, Keith. If I am entitled to get something for "free" should I not exercise my rights? Why don't you ask Mitt for advice, he had said that he would not be fit to be president if he didn't claim charitable deductions he was entitled to. But wait, he had $4 million in charitable deductibles in 2011, and, oops, that would have reduced his tax rate too much, so he claimed only half. Now he is suddenly fit to be president? Laughably poor Mitt.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Uh, Romney claimed the charitable deductions to which he was entitled.
A Gannett newspaper echoed your observation and conclusion:
"The documents also made clear Romney, who donates millions of dollars to charity each year, reduced the amount of charitable deduction he claimed this year TO KEEP HIS TAX RATE ABOVE 13 PERCENT." (emphasis added)
Yet there is ZERO evidence of Romney's motives in not claiming additional deductions. It may very well be that the charities to which he donated are, through no fault of his, problematic and he wanted to avoid any controversy. Perhaps a worthy endeavor to which he subscribed had not (yet) met federal guidelines for acceptable deductions. There could be, I'm saying, any number of reasons for not claiming a charitable deductions and it is mendacious to claim (seemingly) evil intent when there is absolutely no basis for so doing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so it would behove mr romney to release a list of those charitable contributions he didn't claim so he can put his birth certificate issue to rest
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's all in the timing, Heybub. One day Mr. flipflop says he would be unfit to be president if he didn't claim all the deductions he is entitled to, next thing he isn't claiming charitable deductions. I also do not claim a few contributions I think might qualify very easily. Small amounts that do not warrant the effort to look up all the info that is now required to be listed. But $2 million in charity is suddenly suspect, although it is listed as charitable?
And I commend Mr. Mitt for not claiming deductions so as to keep his tax rate up a bit. But the previous statement of being unfit to be president if he didn't claim everything he was entitled to is what ices it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Idiot. The "poor people" in the cities pay *NOTHING*.

Good Lord, your IQ has dropped off the cliff lately.

Lie.
It shouldn't be free. Nothing is.

I can't believe you're really that stupid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Your comments speak for themseleves.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Admitted.
Admitted.

No comment noted.

Just pointing out an asshat lefty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course that isnt' the issue. The issue is that a government that is going broke is piling on ever more entitlements, giving people things they never earned.

It's pretty despicable to slam Romney over his charitable giving. Between charity and taxes he gave back 42% of the money he earned last year. Obama, is about half that. And Biden, the libs #2 guy gave a whopping $5,500 to charity last year with an income of $380,000. How's that for giving? Romeny is doing precisely what you libs claim the rich don't do. He's giving back MORE than his fair share. And so you stoop to bitching about that too.
And Romney gives away his own money. You libs just give away the money of those that produce in this society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I commend Mr. Romney for paying (not giving) his tithing to his church. That is conviction. (Of course in Germany you need to pay your titthing to the catholic church or you won't be entitled to sacraments, including burial - state-supported religion, but that is Germany).
Charitable giving in the tax code includes the tithing of a religious institution, a commendable encouragement by the government of religion. Since this is an appreciable % of income in the LDS, it really helps cut down on taxes owed.
Oh, btw, just federal income taxes were a LOT more than 42% just a few decades back, at the income levels of Mr. Flip-flop.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're confusing top marginal tax rates with the total percentage of a persons income that they pay in taxes. Sure the top marginal tax rate was 70% before Reagan. But almost no one was paying any where near 70% of their total income in taxes. See the difference?
That's why Republicans are in favor of simplyfing and flattening the tax code so that there are less brackets, less exemptions, etc. Why have games where the top rate is 70%, then pile on all the loopholes and deductions so that the vast majority, including the rich, wind up paying 20% or 25% anyway? Think hard, maybe you'll figure it out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The progressivity was there for a reason, and (IMO) should remain. Flattening those rates would fall unfairly on lower paid people, whose take home has suffered the most during the recent fiscal crises. Flattening rates /sounds/ great to make everyone pay their fair share, but one has to have a certain minimum expendable income, if only to protect purchasing power of the masses that drives the economy. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_expendable_income Bleed the lower incomes dry, and there is no more economy, except for booze and guns. (grin)
The loopholes and deductions have stayed in place (except interest paid on credit was removed as a deduction decades ago IIRC), but the tax rates were lowered. I am all for reducing the loopholes and deductions, but you'll have a hard time removing mortgage interest, property and state income taxes as deductibles. Could perhaps be done by setting limits as to the absolute dollar amounts that are deductible, and setting in stone those limits so they could not be adjusted for inflation. That would be an impetus for high tax states (such as in my area) to be reined in. But I won't be holding my breath on the latter.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Some would say the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because the poor use more government services. Sure, the rich are sometimes driven on public roads and their Gulfstreams navigate through federally-controlled airspace, but they don't send their kids to government schools, get treated at the county hospital, and have private guards instead of relying on the local police.
It adds up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/29/2012 6:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:

If the P.L.L.C.F. keep yapping about tax rates instead of gross amount of taxes paid by gazillionares, the evil rich should say OK, since we pay more money than you do, we should premium concierge service from law enforcement, fire departments, road maintenance, sanitation services, etc. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who pays for secret service protection?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can't see the forest for the trees. The rich people, for the most part, were never paying 70%. With today's rates of 35%, they aren't paying that. Romney paid 14% last year. Over the last decade, he's averaged 20%. Obama paid 23% last year. I'll bet most of the folks here wind up paying about that rate. So what exactly is wrong with having a flat tax of say 20% on all income and getting rid of most of the exemptions. Except of course for removing the class warfare aspect and the fiction that libs have that they are socking it to the rich.....
As for the people suffering, for the most part, it's not an issue of taxes. It's an issue of failed economic policies that have resulted in high unemployment. Those people aren't paying taxes at all.

Who is proposing to bleed the lower income people dry? You could simply exempt people below a certain threshold from paying taxes at all. Just like 49% don't pay taxes today, nothing says that with a flatter tax, less loopholes, less exemptions, they have to pay tax either.

Actually the loopholes and deductions have all been pretty much screwed with in one fashion or another over the years. Most recently deductions for green energy, energy efficiency come to mind.

That's the difference between a lib and a conservative. Conservatives are in favor of reducing loopholes and deductions ONLY IF it's combined with lower tax rates.

That's already been done with mortgage interest, for example. Also the alternative minimum tax, another monstrosity, effectively eliminates most other deductions for many tax payers.

Now why on earth would you do that? If anything all of it should be INDEXED to inflation.
>That would be

What does not adjusting for inflation at the federal level have to do with controlling taxes at the state level?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: <snip> for brevity

Exactly, and I think they should pay more.

I doubt it, I think they said he never paid less than 13-14%.

That is probably indeed fiction, because the rich have access to all the deductions.

Unemployment and underemployment are important problems to address, but the majority of the 46% of households not paying federal taxes are elderly, students and people who are working at wage rates that make them not eligible to pay federal taxes.

But then you have not a flat tax anymore, you have at a minimum 2 rates, zero and your 20%. If the borderline is at say $50,000, I would assume that only the excess over 50K will be taxed, giving you in effect floating rates.

That is how all deductions and credits started, as an incentive to invest in one form or another. At the time a majority in Congress thought it was a good idea. Since ther is no automatic sunset, it stays and becomes infinitely more complicated each year.

I would regard that as a small difference in opinion. I think revenue should cover the expenditures, and am all in favor of simplifying the life of the clerks, and reducing their numbers. We do need a balance to reduce the deficit. So now Mitt is saying not to expect any increase in net income, because the lower tax rate is going to set off with reduced loopholes. Since the loopholes are mostly "enjoyed" by the folks with higher incomes, he seems to be saying he is indeed trying to sock it to the rich, or am I now fooling myself with thoughts of Mitt the Socialist?

Those limits are rather high I think, on regular mortgages. I only have a Heloc, so I know that if my balance goes over 100K, I must limit the deduction. No notion of the other limts if any. I thought perhaps only interest on primary residence?

I thought you wanted to cut out loopholes and deductions? In some oher countries, mortgage interest isn't deductible, so perhaps we are an anomaly (but we have higher home ownership I think). Anyway, it should be possible to phase out the home mortgage deductions, if we really wanted. One way would be to not index to inflation the deductions for state/local taxes and mortgage interest.

Currently NY etc are very much in favor of deductibility of state taxes on the federal tax return, because that makes their high state and local taxes less unpalatable. If there were an upper limit to deductibility, it would put pressure on state and local government to reduce the rate of increases in state taxes. But as I said, I am not holding my breath on that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you do, because you're a lib. The top 5% of taxpayers currently pay 60% of the total tax burden. But you bitch on, like they are paying little. That sure looks to me like a very progressive tax system. Here's a question I've seen libs asked over and over again and they never answer. What percent of their total income should those in say the top 5% pay?

Of course you doubt it. Like most libs, you're ignorant of the most basic facts and hence can't form sound opinions:
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-taxes-2012-9
"Along with the candidate's 2011 tax returns, the campaign has posted a letter from Romneys tax preparer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, summarizing Romney's tax rates from 1990 to 2009.
The letter claims that Romney's average federal income tax rate over those 20 years was 20.20%; that the lowest rate Romney paid was 13.66%; and that there were no years during which Romney did not owe both federal and state income taxes. And then he gave away an additional 30% to charity. Joe Biden who earned $370K, gave away a whopping $5500, that's 1.4%.
BTW, when can we expect an apology from the village idiot Harry Reid who claimed Romney paid no taxes?

So, you'd rather live with that fiction and have a convoluted tax code full of all kinds of exemptions, deductions, loopholes that results in people paying 20%, rather than just have a simple one page tax form that gets people there directly. It would also fix what Obama and Buffet have been bitching about, ie the rich paying a lower rate than some middle class taxpayers. But no, that isn't good enough for dyed in the wool libs. You'd prefer to live with the fiction, tilt at windmills, because you can keep trying to use class warfareto divide the country.

And yet you bitch that the tax system is not progressive. You have the bottom 46% paying nothing. The top 5% are paying 60% of the total tax burden. Go figure. I say one big mistake Bush made was allowing more people to avoid paying taxes all together. They should be paying something, even if it's only $500. That way everyone has some stake in the tax system. Instead we're building a whole class of people that libs can pander to, promise more stuff to, and they don't give a damn about it's cost or consequences because they don't have to help pay for any of it.

Read up on the various flat tax proposals that have been made through the years by leading Republicans. I don't know a single one that ever called for taxing all income starting at zero. Romney is in favor of a flat tax, or a flatter tax, but he sure isn't proposing to start taxing anyone starting with dollar one. You really, really need to educate yourself.
>If the borderline is at say $50,000, I would assume

WTF is a "floating rate"? That would be a flat tax starting at $50K.

No shit Sherlock. And it creates economic distortions. You think just maybe part of the reason for the housing boom and bust was that homes receive special tax treatment? That you can make profits there and not have it taxed? That the interest, property taxes are deductible? That's a classic example of the economic distortions that a screwed up tax system produces. Yet, you embrace it. Go figure.

Mitt is doing the same basic math I gave you. That is that a hell of a lot of people wind up paying about 20% or so in overall taxes. That is exactly what Romney himself has averaged over the last decade. It's what Obama paid last year. It's probably what most of us here paid. So, let's get rid of all the nonsense and just have a 20% tax on income above a certain minimum.

Geeez. Now indexing tax brackets or deductions for inflation is a loophole? It's just keeping them CONSTANT in real dollar terms. Following that logic, I suppose we should eliminate the yearly COLA adjustment to social security too. But this is a trick straight out of the lib play book. They pass a new tax to screw the rich, promising how it's gonna fix the deficit, etc. Then over the years inflation pushes middle class taxpayers into the taxes that were supposed to hit only the rich. And of course it doesn't do a damn thing to solve the deficit, because the politicians just spend even more.

This is a good example of lib thinking. Instead of SIMPLYFYING the existing tax system, you want to make it even more convoluted. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Neither am I. And it's such a second order effect, that only a lib would come up with the dumb idea to begin with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

France says they should pay 75%.
Problem is, the percentage they pay is based on their income. What they ought to do is have everybody file an income tax return, then the government determines the top, say, 10%. The government then sends these toppers a bill. Nobody would no for certain whether they're actually IN the top ten percent until they get the bill.
As it is, these top earners in France are heading for the Chunnel and the low-tax haven of Great Britain as fast as their Mercedes can go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.