unconventional tools to stimulate the U.S. economy?

Deal Score0

What do you think would happen if these scenarios come true? An IRS suspends taxes on individuals and companies from January 1-28. February? This money would be in the hands of consumers and savers, space, and businesses more money on hand to reinvest in the business. Do you think it would help the economy or not? The United States could do so only for two months? 2 For owners who might be candidates to repay their housing loans would only increase their loan contracts from 30 to 40 years, no advantage in terms of seizures? It seems to me that if people can not afford their monthly mortgage payment based on a period of 30 years, would extend the period of 40 years (and therefore reduce their monthly payments) for help or not? “I’m just brainstorming here to see if my ideas would actually help the U.S. economy or not. But what do you mean?

3 Comments
  1. Reply
    TheEnd
    May 1, 2011 at 6:11 am

    I am not the most educated on any of this, but I do know the Income tax isn’t exactly used for what It should be, and I think that would be a great idea to suspend them indefinitely so that the money WILL go into the people’s hands indefinitely.

  2. Reply
    Texas
    May 1, 2011 at 6:41 am

    1. Lets say we suspend your paycheck, and pay 100% of your money to the IRS for ONLY 2 months. Do you think you could afford to do this for ONLY 2 months? The problem is that neither you nor the government can afford this. The government has NO SAVINGS and HUGE DEBT. You might be smarter than them and actually have several months income saved up in the bank in case you are out of work for a few months. The government has no such savings built up, they owe owe owe huge debt of credit and need all the money they can get as regularly as possible to continue making payment on the debt. Having no income for them is not an option, government would collapse completely with no income even for a few months.

    2. The problem is not about “ability to make the payment”, the problem is really that the loan is upside down… people owe $ 200K on a house that is now only worth $ 150K or something like that. So what if you give them 40 years or 50 years or 100 years to pay it off, it is still paying more than it is worth, and it is a “better deal” to default on the loan…. or negotiate to get the amount owed reduced to match the book value of the home.

    Good try to test your understanding, but I don’t think I can use either of your ideas yet.

  3. Reply
    joe1max
    May 1, 2011 at 7:32 am

    The first one would be okay, but I would rather just have an overall tax cut. Which is what they are most likely going to do. And that stimulus check was essentially this.

    The second would be great for the banks. They would gladly extend the loan assuming there is equity in the home. Then banks could earn more interest money. It would actually hurt home owners.

    Leave a reply

    Register New Account
    Reset Password