The Housing Bubble

The idea would be that receiving a a large inheritance is just like winning the lottery, or receiving a massive welfare check. It’s money that is received by people who don’t work for it. Ozajh is making a good point. If welfare is believed to harm people by making them lazy, than inheritance would do the same thing.

Well, I’m not sure Dada’s point above was that welfare harms people (but there is a strong argument for that), only that the recipients of free stuff tend not to manage it well.

But anyway, how does a tax rectify that? In some cases, inheritance may go to people who don’t respect it at all, but in other cases it may go to people who do. E.g. I have a friend who has worked on his family farm literally since he was old enough to sit on a tractor. Depending on the inheritence laws in the future, a good portion of that farm may have to be sold off just to pay the tax.

On the other hand, an inheritance tax means the resources go to people who CERTAINLY have no stake (emotional or otherwise) in those assets.

So your solution to fix the problem of inherited resources being mismanged is to send those resources to a group of people who have even less “skin in the game.”

How does that make any sense at all?

At least a lazy, no good recipient of the family fortune has an ownership interest in the inherited assets unlike the govt in which those resources will be managed by people who do not even own the resources but can and will use them for any arbitrary political (or personal) agenda.

From what I see living in California the last 7 years, the number of people with money who actually earned it themselves is a vast minority. Typically, it is:

1. Inherited
2. Drug money (I live in Humboldt county, after all)
3. Flipping RE
4. Scams (such as bailouts, or fleecing someone else).

I would say that covers about 99% of the people with money in California. I have great respect for someone that actually earned their money over time, using their intelligence. With the rest of those people noted above, especially the inherited contingent, there is an entitlement mentality. Something for nothing.

Or, they have earned it by attrition.

It’s amazing to me how many of those who own (meaning no mortgage payments) haven’t really accomplished a whole lot in their lives.

There seems to be an assumption on this board that many of those with fancy homes that are paid off actually WORKED HARD. Lots of folks do squat on the job and get paid big bucks for it. LOTS OF PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, mankind does not yet have a means to reward the truly productive. There’s lots of highly paid ($100K+ yearly) leeches and locusts in the United States. And in every vocation and profession, not just housing.
I’d venture to sat that 3/4 of those earning $100K annually deserve incomes of less than half that based on their productive value to the economy.

We all know this, but it tends to get ignored here.

Rewarding workers for non-productivity is every bit as bad - if not worse - than passing along welfare checks.

Your point is well taken. But there are quit a few ways to reward the truly productive. Take for instance the self employed. Other example are pure commission, and piecemeal.

I’m in total agreement.

Yes no inheritance tax for the elite,

a much better system is to borrow and print money and let inflation tax the poor and middle and upper middle class.

On the other hand, an inheritance tax means the resources go to people who CERTAINLY have no stake (emotional or otherwise) in those assets

How can you measure an emotional stake in cash. I know you’ll wine about the farmer - Well there was a huge exemption for farmers and no recorded cases of a family loosing a farm to these taxes. If the child ran short on cash he could certainly borrow money and pay it back so no way they would loose the farm if they were hard working and could make the farm pay.

The concentration of wealth in this country works against democracy, it works against capitalism which requires a fair playing board.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_inheritance.html

I don’t favor farmers over anyone else I just happen to know that one person and was providing it as an example to my point about the diversity of heirs. It can’t be said that every heir is a lazy person and has only bad qualities or whatever. That’s just a method used by that those who wish to steal to dehumanize their victims.

a much better system is to borrow and print money and let inflation tax the poor and middle and upper middle class.

Sorry, that’s more your camp than mine. As long as you apologize for the govt and continue to support new ways for them to sqaunder resources, the bills get higher and that’s one way they pay for it.

I don’t think I have ever seen you suggest that maybe they should be spending less. It’s always just an excuse for the status quo and a new way to tax folks to pay for all the useful services we should be happy to receive.

I also notice you have a tendency to sidestep direct issues presented. Here is an example where everyone seems to agree that unearned resources are typically mismanaged by the recipients. I point out that the least earned/involved of all is when pols get more $$ via taxes and how it’s irrational to ackowledge the phenomenon but then suggest that the solution is to send the resources to those the least deserving and who have the least invested in those resources.

Your response, predictably, is just divert to some standard quip, in this case “no taxes for the elite”, rather than address the irrationality of “fixing” the problem of mismanged resources by sending those resources to the people most likely to mismange them.

You seem like a smart guy. When something seems irrational how about we promote stopping doing the irrational thing?

The topics we’re discussing are drifting quite a bit here. If you go back to A. B. Dada’s original question “And people think welfare can ever work?”, you have to consider what the purpose of welfare is. If you ever read anything about welfare, you’ll find that most welfare recipients are desperately poor women with children. They need money to pay the rent and the electric bill and to put food on the table. If they use their welfare checks and food stamps to pay for those things, then welfare is working. If, for some reason, a woman were to spend the money on other things and allow the kids to starve to death, welfare would not “work” in that case.

Another topic brought up in this latest post is federal deficit spending, to which Mr. Bluprint repsonded
“Sorry, that’s more your camp than mine.” That all depends which camp each if us is in. Think about the past 30 years. Thirty years ago we had the much-maligned President Jimmy Carter. By current standards, deficits were pretty low during the Carter years. Then along came Ronald Reagan and the deficit tripled. We actually had surpluses for a few of the Clinton years. Many Republicans thought that those surpluses were a bad thing. The government is collecting more in taxes than it acutally needs! That’s outrageous! The extreme conservative Republican Alan Greenspan warned of danger that we might actually pay off our national debt. Of course, that prospect was nevr likely. Then along comes George W. Bush, who has set records in his deficits. Both Reagan and W created these massive deficits with a combination of big increases in military spending and tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy. Of course, many Democrats went along with this nonsense in the eighties and 2001-2003, so both of the “camps” in DC bear some responsibility for the debt that will have to be by future generations. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had the effect of moving some of that burden from the rich to the rest of us.

Here’s another thing. Nobody likes taxes.The folks who run the government have discovered deficit spending as a wonderful way to reduce taxes and increase spending at the same time. All that does is push the tax bill into the future. Deficit spending is just a way to raise taxes on your kids. It’s a burden that they evil have to carry for their entire working lives.

It can’t be said that every heir is a lazy person

I agree, let that person demonstrate their worth in the market place. I suspect many of these people have real talent and a strong work ethic. They should fair well in a free market even without inheriting billions of dollars. Inheriting wealth is likely to keep many of these people from being as productive as they could be.

That’s just a method used by that those who wish to steal to dehumanize their victims??
1. Taxation is not stealing, it’s legal.
2. They are not victims?? A progressive tax system taxes those who have benefited most from the system. Do you really think Mozillo’s children should be rewarded with the hundreds of millions he swindled out of borrowers lenders and US tax payers. Make them work for a living. Most of the elite make their money skimming off the productivity of others. The system rewards CEO’s far more it should. The reason is that it’s a good old boys club. Fine but the gov should tax those earnings.

Sorry, that’s more your camp than mine. As long as you apologize for the govt and continue to support new ways for them to sqaunder resources

Not sure which camp you are in but the current administration has created a massive deficit, I’ll vote to remove them. Will the next president/congress be better? Don’t know but I’m pretty sure they won’t be worse. At some point people will get fed up and stop paying attention to Brittney Spears, Gay Marriage, and Flag Burning and pay attention to the things that really affect them. I support Gov spending when it makes the country stronger. I support Gov spending to keep people from starving or becoming homeless, because starving homeless people commit crime (I would become a criminal real quick if my children were hungry and I couldn’t get a job). Most of all I support a gov that generates enough revenue to pay for it’s programs. If you want tax cuts cut gov spending to match them. If you want to increase spending increase taxes to pay for it. I support a gov that owns or highly regulates the conduits of commerce in a manner that is made public. Transmission lines, gas lines, rail lines, roads, internet ect, and creates an even playing field for anyone who wants to compete. If I want to generate power and sell it I can’t be stop by the power company. If I want to start an internet business I can’t be stopped by the internet providers or Microsoft, ect ect.

I don’t think I have ever seen you suggest that maybe they should be spending less.
1. Roll back farm subsidies
2. Make gas taxes pay for all highway construction and management. Cut income taxes by amount used to support highway dept ect.
3. Cut subsidies to Big oil tax gas to pay for war in Iraq and all the security we provide for oil production
4. Get rid of Welfare, but replace it w a works program
6. Means test and increase age req for Social Security
7. Slash military spending,
8 Carbon tax with money returned to tax payer in the form of voucher for equipment that increases efficiency.
9. Single payer medicare system. There is no free market in Medicine anyway. Either gov run or highly regulated private corp, ie gov says there are X levels of service, insurers then offer these different levels to customers and compete based on price. One gov site lists all companies that offer level 1 2 3 ect. Financial data for all companies offerring plans is made public, ie CEO compensation,payouts, late payments to MDs, complaints from people MD’s ect.

Another cut
No bale out for GSE’s or banks. No discount window ect.
Let them fail
Stock holders and bond holders take a bath
FDIC insures accounts, I’d even agree to increase the limit.
Banks may be taken over and then sold on the open market, once their assetts have been properly reported to the public and bidders.
Let Moody’s S and P Fitch ect have they year or two in court with investors who lost everything.

1. Taxation is not stealing, it’s legal.

I didn’t say it is illegal. In fact, the entire conversation is about whether it should be legal. I make a characterization that this tax is immoral and you respond with “but it’s legal”. ??

I think “steal” can have both a legal connotation (which doesn’t really make sense in this conversation since there is no disagreement about what is legal) and a subjective one. “Legal” is a technical nuance. A thing can be both theft and legal, or theft and not legal, or not theft and not legal, etc.

Just like killing a black slave at one time was legal, that didn’t make it any less of murder. If I said “so-and-so murdered that guy” would you respond “it’s not murder, it’s legal”. Maybe if we were debating whether it was legal or not that response would make sense, but in the context of whether one human should be arbitrarily allowed to kill another, that response wouldn’t make any sense at all. And it doesn’t make sense now.

Do you really think Mozillo’s children should be rewarded with the hundreds of millions he swindled out of borrowers lenders and US tax payers.

There you go again. You are using the worst examples of society to represent the general case. It’s transparent and highlights your dishonesty.

The system rewards CEO’s far more it should. Fine but the gov should tax those earnings.

First, the entire corporate system is a system set up by the same government you think will “do right” if they were only given the chance. What you don’t get, is that the regulators are already in place. They are doing their job and doing it quite effectively. Their goal isn’t what you think it is.

Second, the other issue aside, to the extent that the people who “benefitted most” from the system should be taxed, then tax them on the income. In fact, last time I checked (fairly recently), there is already a tax on income. Further, the more you benefit, you don’t just get taxed proportionately more, you get taxed disproportionately more.

Taxing inheritance above the extent to which it would fall under a normal income tax for the heir is something else entirely. At that point, you aren’t really taxing the income anymore, you are taxing the ability of the deceased to save at best and at worst…maybe you just have a hardon to punish people who you perceive to have more than you? It’s like a bunch of crabs all pulling each other into the pot. If one guy gets a headstart, why such animosity? That’s strange.

And I still haven’t seen anyone address my original questions. If a fundamental point of your position is that these heirs “don’t deserve” the inheritence and therefore shouldn’t get it, then I think you have some intellectual responsibility to explain or defend how the people you would prefer to direct to (the pols who do with it what they will) DO deserve it.

Or for the people who argue specifically that b/c heirs have a greater tendency to squander wealth/resources and therefore should be deprived of it: explain how sending that wealth to the group of people more capable of incompetence and mismanagement (to the tune of 9 trillion if you use the funny government accounting practices that would be illegal for anyone else, or 50+ trillion if you use something more resembling GAAP) than any institution or individual I’m aware of, is an improvement?

“That’s just a method used by those who wish to steal to dehumanize their victims. ”
You used the term steal, and compared tax payers to victims. I stated that taxation is not theft or stealing, and those that pay the tax are not victims. They choose to live in this country, if they don’t like the law they are free to get it changed, which a small group of families did. <1% of families pay this tax. In 2006 out of 2.3 million deaths only 6300 left taxable estates.The right uses terms like steal to sway the conversation, just like they paraded the farmer as a victim of the tax, but no examples of families loosing the farm. Why because if if they ran short on cash they could borrow against the farm to pay it back, and not too many poor farmers with 2 million dollar farms. In fact a 2000 study showed that only 120 farms would need to pay any estate tax. Over 90% of businesses are worth less than 1 milliion dollars. Now you argue that the tax is not fair. Most things in life aren’t fair, but concentrating financial power in a few families that can then influence government to perpetuate their wealth is not good for the country. Tax cuts for the elite and inflation for the poor, middle and upper middle class is not good for the country or democracy.

In fact, last time I checked (fairly recently), there is already a tax on income. Further, the more you benefit, you don’t just get taxed proportionately more, you get taxed disproportionately more. The system rewards investment income and penalizes income for work rendered. It’s good to know that most middle and upper middle class workers pay a higher tax rate than billionair hedge fund managers and those that inherit their wealth.

“If a fundamental point of your position is that these heirs “don’t deserve” the inheritence ” This isn’t my point at all but Yes what exactly have heirs done to deserve their wealth other than be born to the right people.

My point is I don’t want a country where people are born into powerfull families and thus are able to manipulate the gov and system at the expense of all others. I want a country where you are measured by your work and your accomplishment and not by your last name.

measton,

You make good arguments and I usually agree with most of your points, but disagree vehemently with taxing inheritance.

Firstly, inheritance does NOT concentrate wealth into fewer hands. As a matter of fact, inheritance usually spreads the wealth as most decedents have more than one heir…so the money goes from one person (the deceased) usually to two or more (the heirs), and charitable organizations are very often one of the beneficiaries of a wealthy decedent’s estate.

IMHO, a wealthy person’s estate has already been taxed via income tax when the money was earned. Taxing the estate after death is double-taxation, as you are taxing the same money twice.

Additionally, the family’s money belongs to the family. My money belongs to my family, and that includes my children.

The best way to avoid concentrating wealth in a few hands is via progressive income taxes, and “passive” income should be taxes at least as much as “earned” income (from actual labor). On that we most definitely agree.

The heirs of an estate should not be taxed on their inheritance, but any future income from the estate should most assuredly be taxed progressively.

you don’t need the government to do that.

“Whatever an heir actually earns and declares in that year is matched by the trust. No income? No match”

I see were you are coming from…but what if you have a child that believes they feel good about using their life energy for the peace corps… instead of a commodities trader at Goldman Sachs?

Put a dollar value on the volunteer work and match that.

Nope, no volunteer work dollar amount. It’s complicated enough as it is, much less having to place a perceived value on various and sundry jobs.

If they want to GIVE money to volunteer organizations, that’s perfectly fine, but the kids got to work, as in money work. If they think the Peace Corps is their life destiny, so be it, but trying to value that properly leads to vagueness and lawsuits. So they can work as a bond broker, or mechanic, or even (God firbid) a lawyer, and then give generously.

“God FORBID”, I mean. And “The kid’s got to…”
Oh boy, do I need more coffee? No, I think I need less today.

So your porn producer heir with a cocaine habit who makes $100,000 yearly… gets a matching fund…but daughter Sally doing medical prevention work in Africa gets $0 ?

“You can not directly pursue happiness”…Aristotle

Hwy50, I don’t think Nova’s intentions is to evaluate or reward life work for heirs, only to help mitigate against the effects of large inheritance. That plan seems to do so rather effectively.

Yep, that’s how it would work. But who’s to judge that Sally in Africa is doing “better” work? (Eek, that’s libertarian for you, eh?) Before you slam me: I would think the med work is better for sure, but that’s just my own judgement call! But to try to define that leads to lots of subjective arguments. You highlighted an extreme case; there are many more reasonable cases that could be harder to decide.

And c’mon, what are the chances of a kid actually weighing a career decision to be a porn producer versus aid worker? Yes, greater than zero, but barely so. More likely is a scenario where Sally decides she has to weigh a paid job at the Medicin Sans Frontieres (sp?) office in DC versus that unpaid stint in Africa. Hey, easy decision: Take the office, and then she can donate the match-money to pay for others’ stints in Africa, and MSF gets two workers out of it.

Overall, though, my guess is that just handing them the money flat out with no conditions at all would lead to more trouble, on average, than with the “strings” — especially when people are still in their teens and twenties (and maybe even thirties) before most of us settle into our own personal spending habits.

I agree with you HWY…I think NOVA has a interesting idea but your point is accurate…My feeling is that inheritance should come late in the benificiares life…More of a safty net….Give a little bit in the early years but you don’t get the big bonanza until your 50’s…

Nova,
Hey I’m struggling with this sit-U-ation myself, actually been dwelling on different scenarios…but I had a x1 sister that had x5 bad bad male, “significant others” / “Love of my life!” companion choices (x1 one was killed in prison & x1 was a 3 strike term winner) and she WAS addicted to heroin, another sister, who took my fathers S.S. $$$ to foster her skills at playing bingo x3 a week (She once was crowned “Bingo Queen”) leaving just enough money left over to purchase a months supply of lime jello & boxes of craft macaroni & Cheese for Dad.

So, what I’m struggling with is to avoid cash distributions in lump sum quantities…the kids (x4) aren’t going to think much of my ideas… I’m sure (how many kids think their parents understand their needs anyways)…but it will be across the board equitable…

But, I won’t be here…So what I leave them… I hope they understand, was what I thought best and that I cared & hoped about them all and hope that they are able to smile and be thankful.

One thing I learned is that it may not be your children that are the problem…but whom they are “Hangin’ with at various points across their life.

My prized inheritance: My fathers carpenter hammers and the skills he taught me how to use them.

I know this will sound cruel, but in the end all those who try to support and help the poorest of the poor just end up adding to the overpopulation and global warming problems. They’re directly connected, in case you hadn’t figured that out yet.

I know this will sound cruel, but in the end all those who try to support and help the poorest of the poor just end up adding to the overpopulation and global warming problems. They’re directly connected, in case you hadn’t figured that out yet.

Here’s an idea, support birth control and family planning clinics even if they discuss abortion. Support education for women and womens rights around the globe. It’s pretty clear that when women can work, and have rights , and have access to birthcontrol they choose to have smaller families. Tie food aid to population control targets and education. If you have two kids you can only get food aid if you have your tubes tied or your husband gets the vas. The religious right supports war famine and disease as their method of population control, I favor the approach above.

Congress and the President have been pissing money away anyway. If you haven’t noticed there is a massive debt. Now the question is how should that debt be paid off. A progressive tax that targets those who have benefited most from the system, or printing money which leads to inflation which taxes the poor, middle and upper middle class.

“I’d rather have rich kids pissing their money away than give it to Congress to piss away. Any old time.”

You dog, you!

Well said. While what you propose is far from ideal, at least some kids that receive inheritances further their knowledge and sense of responsibility from inheritances. N’oblesse(sp?) oblige and all that good stuff.

Conversely, if the government redistributes all the money, the kids are guaranteed to learning nothing from the gift. There’s no reason for them to have a conscience about what they do with the payola.

Now the question is how should that debt be paid off. A progressive tax that targets those who have benefited most from the system, or printing money which leads to inflation which taxes the poor, middle and upper middle class.

None of that matters if you don’t first plug the holes. As long as spending continues to increase (congress recently set a new goal of 800,000,000,000 more debt to achieve) everything put into it is just more money down the hole. And increased taxes encourages increased spending, per the same theme discussed in this thread how people who have resources they don’t earn probably are going to mismange those resources.

This is a free country. People have a right to leave their money to whomever they want. It is nobody else’s business. It doesn’t matter if the kids are hardworkers or deadbeats. It’s THEIR money, not OUR money.

There seem to be a lot of people on this blog who resent anyone having more than they do, and who spend all their time looking for supposed unjust distributions of wealth. If you want to live in a communist country where everybody has the same level of financial misery (except for the rulers, of course), go for it. Nobody has nailed your feet to American soil.

If I make a billion dollars and choose to leave it all to the laziest person on Earth, it has nothing to do with anyone else. How come people can’t grasp this concept? My stuff is not your stuff, and your stuff is not my stuff. If I give someone a gift, that item is hers, and I cannot tell her what she can or cannot do with it. But nobody has the right to prevent me from giving it, and the government certainly has no right to any of it. Inheritance taxes are ridiculous. The money has already been taxed as income and heaven-knows-what else, and it is a gift. Who cares if the recipient squanders it? The government would squander it even faster, and nobody would be any happier for it.

And if the government needs money, how about cutting out waste and fraud. That would reduce the budget by about 70%.

Obviously taxation has no baring on spending. GW cut taxes and spending went up.

“What else could it be?”

Maybe they didn’t know who they were and the lottery winnings allowed them to find out.

Nor are they “entitlements” but whatever makes a convenient case for ideologues seems to be in vogue these days.

Wait:
“Military spending flat since RR.

Federal welfare and entitlement spending +75%.”

Isn’t that sort of like saying:

Oval Office bjs are down 100 percent since WJC.

or

Bikini Atoll temperatures are down 8,000% since Mike Bravo

Using a notable historical extreme high point from which to judge is lies, damn lies and statistics. I’m not knocking Reagan (support relatively high levels of defense spending) but that stat is utter crap.

My dad was in the Bikini’s when they tested…Used all those Navey guys as guiena pigs…

A WPA program…No work, No money…

They already have govt jobs.

Blueprint

What exactly do you plan to do with the unemployed? What if there is an economic downturn, are you willing to watch people starve? Are you willing to put up with the increase in crime, the malnurished children who will not be able to better themselves, and the spread of diseases that come with poverty?

Sounds like a libertarian/authoritarian utopia.

Unemployed people is going to be a issue as we go into a deeper recession . If a man or women can’t find work ,no matter how hard they try ,(and that doesn’t mean staying in the same life style as before ),than those people are
in need of assistance ,IMHO. The government should extend unemployment benefits for starters . Than if the situation really gets bad and people are starving on the streets ,than further assistance will be needed in my opinion ,until more jobs are available. A number of the unemployed will go live with family until things get better ,but many will have no
recourses .

The part about welfare that I don’t like is when it becomes a way of life for a able-bodied person or a gaming of the system by a women having child after child and never knowing who the father is ,yet half the time the cat is living with her not paying a dime toward their offspring .

Everybody wants their tax dollars to go to something that works and is productive .The home bail-outs are offensive to
a lot of people in that it’s bailing out the gamblers or lenders who were gambling and fraudulent in a lot of cases .Some of the tax dollars that are spent on programs just make matters worse . When politicians are bought out ,it really gets annoying and it explains a lot of the poor decision making in
government ,that can end up creating programs that are not good for the Country as a whole ,or create more problems down the line .

Sounds like a libertarian/authoritarian utopia.

I fed a hungry person today at lunch. What did you do?

measton, I don’t claim to be smart enough to cure all of life’s ills.

As long as there are those of you who claim to know how to do that, you will have plenty of followers. You will succeed in establishing your policies. Those policies will continuously fail and make things worse all around.

But decisions do have to be made on how to use tax dollars to
create a well-functioning society . We have to have defense spending ,we have to have some welfare spending ,research and developments ,public projects ,you name it .

I’m always pushing job creating as a way to stimulate the economy ,but that’s just my view on a productive way of stimulating of the economy ,I’m sure some people don’t agree .

Blueprint ,I really don’t know what the answers are ,so it’s just
suggestions that I’m making . I’m like everybody in that I don’t like to much government interference in markets ,unless it’s
regulatory in nature in enforcing laws on the books . I didn’t feed a hungry person today ,except for myself ,but I have many times in my life . I also paid huge taxes when I was working ,and I wasn’t a tax cheat ,so tons of my money has gone into the programs . I’m still paying a lot of taxes yearly
actually .

We need some sort of safety net. I don’t want my country to be the kind of place where people starve and freeze to death on the street in massively greater number than they do already.

That being said, that’s ALL it should be - a safety net. Not by any stretch of the imagination comfortable, and it should be rife with stigma - incentives for people to get off it.

I think one of the worst things they ever did was put food stamps on an unobtrusive little e-card. they should be florescent colors so everyone can see your spending their tax dollars.

All this and more, but it should be AVAILABLE to those in need.

Otherwise we’re no better than a third world country(yes I know we’re already headed there, and after Katrina one could argue we have arrived).

How could things get worse than massive unemployment starvation and riots?? Because if the economy goes into a tail spin that’s what we’ll have. Even honest passive people will become criminals to feed their family. I know you fed a hungry person today, but there may be many more to follow.

Maybe we should get a NYC HBB party together soon……

Around Grand Central seems a good area…..

“…you can live just fine in a small, well-designed place.”

Well put, yes you can. An awful lot of opportunities, adventures, and rewards await those who restore balance between “the home” and everything else in life.

“And don’t forget the obligatory 4 wheeled junk called Vulva.”

Exeter, sometimes you are enough to make even a grumpy old coot like me smile.

These days everybody is parking their junk anywhere and everywhere.

Starbucks was just a trendy cult, not unlike the Green Bay Puckers and their Cheesehead Fans

“And don’t forget the obligatory 4 wheeled junk called Vulva.”

that wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t always some dickhead driving it.

Dork in a Vulva is more accurate.

“Watching the hipster/rebels buying into the ownership society is both entertaining and enlightening. Yeah, yeah…they’re nothing like their parents at all…not at all.”

Hilarious! Are you referring to the hipsters of the 1960s or today? Because the 1960s were soooooo enlightening don’t you know.

Perhaps today’s hipsters will be more inclined to remain hip. Much less possibility for them to mindlessly flit from house to house, make 50-100 percent on the sale of each home, go skiing in Beaver Creek, and rent/own homes on both coasts.

They won’t realize it until the borrowing stops and invoices are sent. How lazy, devious and corrupt the borrow and spend mantra is.

To spend IS to tax.

We will be paying one way or another for years to come for what has been spent by our recent administration.

If we are lucky, we will get to pay it back with depreciated dollars.

If you think that is bad, think of the burdens associated with paying back money with money that is long gone (deflation)…

“If we are lucky, we will get to pay it back with depreciated dollars.”

That’s one hell of an interesting point and one I think is worth talking about as a weekend discussion topic as it related to housing and economics in general. You’re talking about what potentially could be a very big deal. Thanks.

I’m paying 6% interest on our debt. If that’s not borrowing I don’t know what is.

Her point is not merely that they’re overpriced, but that they’re in line for a correction as the easy money dries up.

You’d do well to take notice.

I don’t think paying a dj to play music at a wedding is an outrageous expense, certainly not part of the recent run up in huge wedding expenses. My brother got married 3 years ago. I have no idea what her mother spent, but my parents claim they spent close to $20K for a shower, the rehersal dinner, and various clothes, gifts, etc. I spent $2K and that was just for a bridesmaid dress, travel, hotel, shower/wedding gifts, etc.

They had a band - must have been 7 people. The band necessarily took more breaks than a dj would have since they were actually playing and singing, and while they were good, they weren’t as good as hearing the actual music by the original artists. Going back to good dj’s is going back to old style reasonable weddings and away from the overspending of recent years.

The other stuff I think is out the door? Bachelor/ette parties to Vegas and tropical islands, cosmetic surgery for bridesmaids, fireworks, destination weddings with more than parents and siblings attending, releasing doves, flowers that cost more than a good used car, mandatory themes for weddings (the venue asks you your theme and make you feel like you are doing it wrong if you don’t have one), and anything else you can think of that will tend to make a party for two large families cost more than a typical family can afford to spend out of savings without derailing their retirement, college savings for other kids, safety net for themselves, etc. Getting married is not an excuse to spend like a rich person if you aren’t rich. You aren’t, in fact, a princess. Get over it.

Odd, this sounds deflationary.

Wow! You and I certainly do travel in different circles, Polly.

That’s a shame. The last wedding and reception I went to was held in May in a barn, with the latter beginning immediately after the former. Among the festivities included a cow-milking contest…with one contest for those who knew what the hell they were doing and the other for those who didn’t (like me).

Jeans, t-shirts, shorts, tennis shoes and a garden hose were all the rage. So was lots of cheap beer, horses, free musicians, etc. It was a hell of a lot of fun.

No wonder why both the bride and groom have so many friends.

Not my circle. My sister-in-law’s or rather her mother’s. To her credit, she works for a living and married a guy (my brother) who couldn’t begin to change that. Her family is wealthy. Not wall street wealthy, but wealthy.

My best friend did her entire wedding for less than $2000 and planned it in less than two weeks. It only went that high because she had to have a photographer and enough trimmings to provide documentation for her husband’s green card application. INS likes to see pictures of you surrounded by your loving family.

You couldn’t pay me to do what my sister-in-law did. Not in a million years.

$50 bucks for the marriage license, $75 for the Judge at his chambers, $8 huli huli chicken, $10 safeway cake, $19.95 box of fireworks.

Aloha

gas plus parking or bus fare to get to judges chambers - lets be fair on the comparisons….:)

GM

Not because it has a better product line up (the Volt is being developed with non existent technology), but because of its presence in Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, China and Russia. South America is exploding with cash and they buy GM. GM is number 1 in China and in China the car of choice is the Cadillac Escalade.

Ford has a strong lineup. If Ford had GM’s equivalent presence they would be trading at $50. GM’s problems stem from the GMAC home lending fiasco.

Without GM’s international position, GM would already be insolvent. If I owned GM, I would shut down the US and keep manufacturing in Brazil and China. The US market is the least profitable and the most expensive to maintain. Not worth the headache.

Amazingly, people find ways to get themselves and their cargo from place to place without the benefit of huge government transportation boondoggles.

This country grew from an obscure colonial backwater to the world’s leading superpower without the benefit of Interstate Highways. In the 19th century, many canals and railroads were privately built. Here’s something to chew on:

THE ROLE OF PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA’S
19th-CENTURY “INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS” DEBATE

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/internal.pdf

I cannot fathom why Eisenhower, having defeated Nazi Germany, was so eager to imitate its road system– unless it was some deep-seated guilt over winning the war. In any case, a government (such as Nazi Germany) which is powerful enough to build massive infrastructure “improvements” is also powerful enough to sap all the energy of its citizens, and that will lead to its downfall.

Also, regarding developed/undeveloped nations, you have the cause and effect backwards. Contrary to standard media claptrap, countries do not become wealthy because of “investments” in “infrastructure”. They become wealthy because of freedom and individual rights. Then govermnent comes along, sees all this wealth, and says lets tax it and build some big boondoggles. Then things start to go downhill.

” a government (such as Nazi Germany) which is powerful enough to build massive infrastructure “improvements” is also powerful enough to sap all the energy of its citizens, and that will lead to its downfall.

A government not strong enough to stand up to business will see it’s people stripped of their wealth the nation stripped of its natural resources, and the environment polluted.

check and mate.

you are a good egg old man.

spent the weekend camping at the Oregon Caves… you should stay at the Lodge….looks haunted, mostly Euroupeans and Canadians….suprised me. Then spent a couple of days at Gold Beach….didnt find any gold, but accomplished a hell-uva sunburn.