Who will be better at getting America out of debt, Trump or Hillary?

UncleBuck said:
i would never play golf with you.
Click to expand...

Just as well, you would irritate me going off the fairway all the time.

cry-jpg.3804225
 
twostrokenut said:
If you redefine wealth as debt then yes, good for you. No one who is wealthy has a $250k $1500/mo mortgage.
Click to expand...

ttystikk said:
This is flat wrong; few wealthy individuals would willingly walk away from all the tax advantages of the home mortgage deduction, no matter what their net worth.
Click to expand...

twostrokenut said:
You are telling me that itemizing a tax return produces a net gain over not paying interest on a home loan for 30 years.
Click to expand...


ttystikk said:
I said nothing of the sort. Try again.
Click to expand...
twostrokenut said:
Interest decreases over time as a % of mortgage

If itemized deduction (mortgage interest) is higher than standard deduction the you can remove the DIFFERENCE from taxable income

at the 40% tax bracket (wealthy eh?) you're paying $10000 in interest to save $4000 in taxes
Click to expand...
ttystikk said:
Your contention that owning your home free and clear is advantageous merely betrays your ignorance of applicable tax law.
Click to expand...

This honestly might be sig worthy. So let me get this straight you are so balls deep in Keynesian theory you think not having a 30year loan at interest is disadvantageous, to keeping said loan to term, because of the tax advantages, written in plain english, by you.

So you say: 200k mortgage at 5% might save you 2500 on your tax bill. That's great.
I say: If you pay that off, you won't save 2500 on your taxes, but you won't pay 10000 to a bank in interest.

That's a net 7500 to paying off the mortgage.

But math skills, penny "fraud" and potato, though, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
twostrokenut said:
This honestly might be sig worthy. So let me get this straight you are so balls deep in Keynesian theory you think not having a 30year loan at interest is disadvantageous, to keeping said loan to term, because of the tax advantages, written in plain english, by you.

So you say: 200k mortgage at 5% might save you 2500 on your tax bill. That's great.
I say: If you pay that off, you won't save 2500 on your taxes, but you won't pay 10000 to a bank in interest.

That's a net 7500 to paying off the mortgage.

But math skills, penny "fraud" and potato, though, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

you forgot to take into account the fact that you now own a home which appreciates in value, instead of a trailer, which invariably depreciates in value.
 
here's some math for ya, trailer boy.

how much did you pay for your trailer, and how long ago?

i don't know what a single wide like yours costs, but google seems to think that it's around $37,000 now. let's say that when you bought it 10 years ago, it cost $30,000. in 20 years, when you need to replace it, you will be looking at closer to $45,000.

so in the 60 years (let's say age 20 to age 80) where you have to own a residence in which to live as an adult human being, you spent $75,000 and have nothing to show for it. $0 is your ROI on $75,000.

whereas someone who takes out a 30 year loan on a house like mine will pay, on average, about $1000 a month for 360 months, for a grand total of $360,000. after 60 years, we still have an asset that always appreciates. $500,000 might be a good guess for our ROI on $360,000. conservatively.

our $1500 mortgage payment not only includes not only our mortgage insurance, but also property taxes and homeowner's insurance. so our actual mortgage is much closer to around $1000 a month. i mention that just in case trailer boy is wondering where i get that number from.

but ya know, maybe cashing in pennies and dreaming of $17.55 coins is a better long term investment. we shall see.
 
twostrokenut said:
This honestly might be sig worthy. So let me get this straight you are so balls deep in Keynesian theory you think not having a 30year loan at interest is disadvantageous, to keeping said loan to term, because of the tax advantages, written in plain english, by you.

So you say: 200k mortgage at 5% might save you 2500 on your tax bill. That's great.
I say: If you pay that off, you won't save 2500 on your taxes, but you won't pay 10000 to a bank in interest.

That's a net 7500 to paying off the mortgage.

But math skills, penny "fraud" and potato, though, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hire you to be my dog's financial advisor.
 
Missing the point on purpose as usual. Pennies aren't a better long term investment than a home, I have a home and its paid off. Tty asked what the vaul teller orders for me, then buck goes full tater on this dumb shit.

Tty and buck says buck is wealthy. I say no wealthy person is dumb enough to be in debt in their personal residence, being wealthy enough to pay it off and all.

Tty jumps in with with the tax deduction to prove potato.

I call him on this simple math and now yall are comparing appreciation and depreciation. Like trolls.

Great, lets take out car loans for an equal amount. You have a 68 Camaro that's tits and I have a new f150. We both borrowed 50k and we both have the savings to pay the loan in full. (thats how stupid this is btw)Mine depreciates and the Camaro appreciates. We still owe the same money. I paid mine off in 6 months, saving all that interest. Tty says the interest is tax deductible to the extent of "few wealthy individuals would walk away" from this tax advantage....the advantage is obviously smaller than the interest savings if paid off.

But no, this does not matter because of appreciation goal post that moved right?

Your roi only happens when you sell. And has fuck all to do with how you justify being wealthy and not being able to pay off your basic shit. We are not talking about the vacay property in telluride here. Then making a lame excuse such as it saves more money over the life of a loan to keep it to term and take a deduction from it.


My dogs house is paid for too, and he's laughing at you both.
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut said:
Missing the point on purpose as usual. Pennies aren't a better long term investment than a home, I have a home and its paid off. Tty asked what the vaul teller orders for me, then buck goes full tater on this dumb shit.

Tty and buck says buck is wealthy. I say no wealthy person is dumb enough to be in debt in their personal residence, being wealthy enough to pay it off and all.

Tty jumps in with with the tax deduction to prove potato.

I call him on this simple math and now yall are comparing appreciation and depreciation. Like trolls.

Great, lets take out car loans for an equal amount. You have a 68 Camaro that's tits and I have a new f150. We both borrowed 50k and we both have the savings to pay the loan in full. (thats how stupid this is btw)Mine depreciates and the Camaro appreciates. We still owe the same money. I paid mine off in 6 months, saving all that interest. Tty says the interest is tax deductible to the extent of "few wealthy individuals would walk away" from this tax advantage....the advantage is obviously smaller than the interest savings if paid off.

But no, this does not matter because of appreciation goal post that moved right?

Your roi only happens when you sell. And has fuck all to do with how you justify being wealthy and not being able to pay off your basic shit. We are not talking about the vacay property in telluride here. Then making a lame excuse such as it saves more money over the life of a loan to keep it to term and take a deduction from it.


My dogs house is paid for too, and he's laughing at you both.
Click to expand...

If you think your house and your car are equal investments in terms of borrowing money for, you're gonna lose a battle of words with said potato.

I'm done. You keep your financial wizardry, I've seen enough.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Basic survival requires those making under a certain amount spend 100% of their income. If we implemented the kind of taxation system you just suggested based on sales, poor people would pay a higher percentage of their income towards taxes than rich people

Try not to get sidetracked, can you tell me why you believe this is a good idea?
Click to expand...

I do not know what the term 'Basic Survival' means. There is a vast amount of difference in cost of living from place to place and many options for people to save money including sharing housing, transportation, food, etc. Not sure what percentage of the population is barely surviving.

I dont think that individuals should be treated differently based on their income. I am against a regressive taxation system that takes more from people as they make more money.

It restricts freedom.

I dont think we should be taxed upon our income because it is an incredible invasion of privacy that declares we are guilty of making money and requires us to prove our expenses so we do not have to pay excess taxes.

Can you tell me why you seem to have no problem with the limitless spending of the government and the intrusiveness in our lives?
 
srh88 said:
I heard you had to take out a loan just to afford ramen noodles.. is it true?
Click to expand...

That would be untrue...

I heard that Schuylarr and crew have absolutely no idea what the difference between secured debt and unsecured debt is...
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Because poor people spend 100% of their money, rich people spend a much smaller percentage of their money, so if you only have a tax on spending, poor people would be taxed on 100% of their income while rich people would only be taxed on the percentage of their income that they spent, which is why it would be regressive
Click to expand...

Could you define rich people? It seems you only know 2 types, abject poor and filty rich.

Rich people spend more money on their housing, their cars, their food and their entertainment. Thus they would be subject to taxes on their higher spending.

Everyone would only be taxed on spending allowing everyone to save and invest their money to make more and become wealthy.
 
ttystikk said:
If you think your house and your car are equal investments in terms of borrowing money for, you're gonna lose a battle of words with said potato.

I'm done. You keep your financial wizardry, I've seen enough.
Click to expand...
you should be done. Who was it that brought up home vs dot home vehicle trailer auto thing? Oh fuck potato. Who said interest and property tax deduction on 250k mortgage (usa median) would lure the wealthy so hard as to retain that debt to term for all the benefits of tax deductions that are less than interest and prolly not even above standard deduction? You realize appreciation happens to my paid off home as well or potato whatever. So ya take a ginko biloba or something.
 
twostrokenut said:
Interest decreases over time as a % of mortgage

If itemized deduction (mortgage interest) is higher than standard deduction the you can remove the DIFFERENCE from taxable income

at the 40% tax bracket (wealthy eh?) you're paying $10000 in interest to save $4000 in taxes

I though you might be challenging but you're no daisy at all.
Click to expand...
ttystikk said:
So refinance.
Click to expand...

Teh Fux? refi for what, to lower the interest? That would hurt you more according to you.

Here's a crazy idea. Pay the above loan off. Pay the taxes. Then put what you would have been paying in interest to charity or a good cause rather than just giving it to the bank.

Last one I swear. I love your vert grows but you fucked this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top