I'm sorry now that I opened this can of worms. I should have left the lid on by remaining silent.
Negative yields may be coming to U.S.: Guggenheim CIO Minerd
- Thread starter trader99
- Start date
No bank is going to pay you for the courtesy to finance your house. In Europe and in Japan where negative rates have been a protracted reality - consumer and commercial mortgage rates are still positive.
Look at the US 30 Year Bond futures this week. Crushed. Price down = interest rates up.
M
morganist
It is a viable solution to give more money to people who worked hard earning it and I think better than the MMT method of printing money off and taking wealth away from people who earned it. Taxation exemptions for supplementary income also comes without the consequences of currency devaluation that printing money brings with it both domestically and internationally. The can of worms has been opened, but it wasn't you that opened it the government debt did.
M
morganist
Why are you so opposed to taxation exemptions for supplementary income? Do you not think that people who are willing to work harder deserve to keep more of the money they earn? Or do you think that the government should be entitled to keep even more of someone's money even when they have already taken a massive percentage of the money they earned from their primary occupation?
It is like you are not even allowing people a way out of paying hyper tax even if it is to reduce their own debts or to restore economic prosperity. It is like you are not allowing people the opportunity to get out of poverty even if they are willing to take on more work to do it. The government still has to take a massive cut of what you earn even if you do another job to support your family in a difficult time, is there no reprieve?
I don't want to attack you too much personally because I understand your position may be a macroeconomic stance and there might be some underlying macroeconomic reasons to not use supplementary taxation exemptions. However this post has changed my attitude towards my work on supplementary income from being a way out of the economic crisis to just being able to maintain a basic human right to work your way out of poverty.
Why should the government take more money from someone who is prepared to take on another job to pay off their debts or to take their family out of poverty? I am now going to campaign on this issue as a human rights issue and to limit how much the government can take from someone. I feel that if a person is prepared to take on more than one occupation that they should not have to pay even more taxation.
M
morganist
This is a tax credit, so is the tax taken and then credit given back? I was just planning on the government not taking tax in the first place. It seems to be child related as opposed to whether someone is working an additional job. There is no incentive to work an additional job or reward for doing it, it seems to be for primary occupation and child orientated. The principle is good but the method of performing it is inefficient.