Althea
Althea told me...
I don't know many private sellers that take credit cards.
People are living on credit cards and getting screwed
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
I have been researching this, and I am sort of right... But it is more crazy, so under some circumstances I could be wrong.
I am trying to figure this out, but it appears that if a cashback is considered a rebate, or a discount, it is not taxable. So if I buy a car that was listed at $20k, but buy it for $19k, I did not just make $1k of income... Arguably this is the same thing.
I am racking my brain, and have an accountant racking his brain, to figure out if this is all kosher with the IRS, but it might just be.
Here is an Investopedia article on the whole thing:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ard-rewards-considered-taxable-income-irs.asp
There are tricks to getting cashbacks on cash advancements, which can actually generate money without costing money (because you use the cash advance to payoff the statement balance). People keep finding these technicalities, and the credit cards keep closing the technicalities. These people claim that they are not just making money from nothing, but that it is tax free.
I was more sure that it is tax free when I originally posted this yesterday, than I am now. I make several thousand dollars a year off cashback, but only from things I buy, not from cash advances. I have never been sent a 1099 form by credit card companies, so assume it is tax free, but now I wonder.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
I don't sell much of anything these days. But I don't like touching money because I've seen where it's been. I haven't been sick once since I quit touching touching cash.
You are correct. Most studies show almost no effect on employment, some studies show a major negative effect on employment, and a few studies show a major positive effect on employment. For such a formerly believed theory, the evidence is mostly not there, which has led to a lot of people arguing that the theory is disproven.
That argument was even weaker. Almost everyone has some form or another of universal healthcare. No one in the mainstream outside the USA is arguing against universal healthcare. Many conservatives outside the USA are arguing for a program more like Obamacare, but not giving up universal healthcare.
That definitely seems true... Within reason.
The wealthiest consume the least compared to their money. The poor and the middle class create more demand per dollar of tax cut. That is just a fact.
Althea
Althea told me...
Odd is the fact that you have to pay tax on the list price, not the rebated price.
I never really worried too much. In almost every instance I take it by applying to my balance, so from a tax perspective it's on the up and up. One card demands that they send me a check, and I find it a pain in the ass.
There was a time under Bush the lesser that there was no fee for cash advances. They were literally giving money away, hoping that someone would not meet the deadline and have to pay interest.
Now the minimum is 3% of the advance, or a minimum of $5.
If it wasn't tax free, you would only get a 1099 from a card IF you got $600/year in rebates. If you spread your spending out over several cards, it might never be an issue.
Althea
Althea told me...
I stopped using cash whenever I could when Covid hit.
A slight disagreement. It does matter what you and I think but, as with any democracy, it's a matter of what the collective will of the voters think. Yes, too many are stupid or ignorant enough to fall for pandering.
It's why populism works so well among the poorly educated. JPP has multiple examples of this phenomenon.
Althea
Althea told me...
The mean IQ of the voter dropped about 25 points since trump inspired the 'under educated' to vote.
That's bad.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The denunciating of intellectual elitism is an absolute requirement if the intellectually deficient are to find some way of cultivating undeserved self-esteem.
It's much easier to belittle people who have striven to improve themselves
than it is to actually improve oneself.
It's much easier to belittle people who have striven to improve themselves
than it is to actually improve oneself.
Street Glider
Verified User
They've always been there, as the numbers seem to prove - only about 60% of Americans vote. It's what Trump inspired them to vote for is what's most disturbing to me.
WHAT?!?
The Federal Reserve Bank of America...'acts for our collective interests'?
A privately-run, for-profit corporation?
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
Which has privately-held shares (widely believed to be owned by the major banks) - yet refuses to tell the world who owns these shares OR whom they assist (without a court order)?
And which can 'print', near-infinite amounts of money without ANY Congressional approval or knowledge?
And could - if they were able to get hold of enough shares - buy every, single, publicly-traded company in America?
And has been sending billions of dollars to foreign banks.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ending-billions-of-dollars-all-over-the-world
The same Fed who COMPLETELY BLEW the housing bust?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fed-missed-the-housing-bust/
The same Fed that bailed out ALL it's banking buddies with $1.8 trillion in toxic asset purchases AND took control of AIG (the then, largest insurance corporation in the world)?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/95810-federal-reserve-buys-aig
Both, again, without congressional approval (which they did not legally need).
The same Fed that through virtue of it's 'full employment mandate' is legally allowed to do almost ANYTHING it sees fit - without consulting Congress whatsoever?
The same one that since they have been openly and directly, altering the economy as they see fit - over the last 15 years?
Has seen the US economy NEVER (outside of one, Covid-19 Depression recovery year) grow as much as even a lethargic 3.0%.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US
NOT ONCE?
No offense.
But if you seriously think the Fed 'acts for our collective interests'?
Then you are EXTREMELY naive on that subject, imo.
Of course, most people are...so you are not alone.
The Fed are a bunch of glorified bean counters with near-infinite, financial power who have been proven to be macroeconomic ignoramuses WHILST continually bailing out their banking/Wall Street buddies at the expense of the rest of America.
Last edited:
I am well aware of the Philip's Curve'.
It is - yet another - economical model.
Thus...means nothing to me insofar as this subject is concerned.
Just another theory.
Thanks for posting the article...I could not see it
But the study it is based on was incredibly narrow.
Two neighboring states...one raises their minimum wages, one doesn't.
And because the state's unemployment rates did not react as many feared ...that means that raising the minimum wage, will not hurt employment across the ENTIRE country - for all time?
That is ridiculously simplistic and incredibly narrow.
The study means next to nothing, imo.
Their latest study - which I posted above - says EXACTLY the opposite.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681
It is Economics 101.
If you raise wages significantly?
With no increase in worker production?
You will - BY DEFINITION - incur a decrease in economic productivity.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/productivity.asp
It is IMPOSSIBLE that a decrease in worker productivity equals a stronger economy/business/whatever area the stats are being measured over (all other things being equal).
IMPOSSIBLE.
Once again, I DESPISE, both parties.
Last edited:
https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2020/08/15/what-harm-do-minimum-wages-do
Actually, the opposite is true. Almost always growth leads to short term decreases in productivity. If you build a factory, it is producing nothing while being built, but costing a lot.
Wrong.
The very definition of worker productivity says so.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/productivity.asp
If you are going to ignore the very definition of words?
I am not wasting my time on this nonsense.
And your factory model is TOTALLY irrelevant.
No workers are working (in the factory) whilst it is being built.
There is no worker productivity without workers.
Clearly, your mind is closed and you will post ANYTHING to back up your illogical and erroneous opinions on this.
We are done here.
Good day.
If you hire a new worker, they will usually be less productive for a while, where as if you have to fire a worker, you will usually fire the least productive worker. Therefore growth almost always leads to short term drops in worker productivity, and economic shrinkage almost always leads to short term rises in productivity.
Raising the minimum wage leads to rises in worker productivity. There is less turnover, so workers get better at their job. You are more likely to invest in training for a higher paid worker, and more likely to buy labor saving technologies for higher paid workers. All of this means that raising minimum wage raises worker productivity.
It is worth remember worker productivity is how much a worker can produce, not how much a worker produces with a certain amount of money.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/productivity.asp
Workers are working to build the factory. Then workers are working to be trained to work in the factory. Then the workers work to get experience working in a factory. Years will go by with lower productivity.
We keep coming back to you refusing to accept the empirical data, because you have a theory.
https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2020/08/15/what-harm-do-minimum-wages-do