tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post5509037139545313890..comments2024-03-28T02:46:41.090-05:00Comments on Supply and Demand (in that order): The Income Tax Hike of 2008Casey B. Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03317454408275318282noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-63117560781016278442008-12-06T09:54:00.000-06:002008-12-06T09:54:00.000-06:00I also posted this on the Trib site.I wonder if yo...I also posted this on the Trib site.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if you ran any numbers for your fictional family for whom "Your best course of action may be to fail to find a new job"? <BR/><BR/>lets say that in 2005 their monthly income was $4000 and the mortgage was $1000. After loss of half their income, they would make $2000 and still be paying the $1000 in mortgage. <BR/><BR/>Per your argument, they would be better off not finding a new job so they could have their mortgage payments limited to 38% of their income, or $760, leaving them with $1240 to live off of per month.<BR/><BR/>However, if they did find that job and returned to the $4000 per month, sure they would have to pay the original $1000 a month in mortgage, but they would have $3000 a month to live on.<BR/><BR/>I'm not an economist, so maybe you can explain to this to me: how is it better to have $1240 for living expenses than $3000? Even if the bank renegotiated the principal on the mortgage somewhat, would it really make up for a more than 50% reduction in disposable income?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314695132178176378noreply@blogger.com