The Housing Bubble

Renters not subsidy-worthy? I dunno, I see plenty of renters subsidized by Section 8. Now, whether or not they’re worthy of the subsidy is another issue.

A home in which a renter is living is a business and interest on the mortgage is already deductible as a business expense. It doesn’t need a special rule. Special rules are only needed to make personal expenses deductible.

…and your rent would be higher if the landlord could not deduct that interest…presumably.

“Section 8″

Trying again: Middle-class renters, who don’t qualify for Section 8, are not subsidy-worthy…

Dude….. how is the MID not “government spending”???? Set aside the massive market distortion the MID creates and the disasterous tax policy that it is.

If it’s not revenue then it is spending. You guys who nattering endlessly about evils of “government” conveniently or more likely ignorantly exclude a very basic element called REVENUE.

The average renter also pays more in taxes than what they get back for their mortgage interest deduction. That’s because their deduction is always $0. In other words, renters are subsidizing the taxes of owners. That is a case of the government taking from one group in order to give to another group. IMO, that is the definition of “government spending”.

Not that government spending is always bad, but I do think it’s bad in this case.

“The average homeowner pays much more in taxes than he or she gets it back in MI deductions.”

Your point is irrelevant, but I’m too lazy to explain why. Take a basic college economics course and get back to us.

spending only in the sense that it is a bank subsidy…indirectly though. so i would not say it is a dollar for dollar calculation.

And I have the trouble with thinking this is “increased taxes.” Say Joe bought a house last year, and got $8K back. This year, he obviously didn’t buy another house and therefore didn’t get another $8K. Did the government raise Joe’s taxes?

Hmmmm. If I buy a cell phone and get money back from a mail in rebate, did I pay less for the phone?

I guess it depends on attention span.

Or another example: say you’re an airline. It costs $75 to carry the passenger and $25 to carry the bag. Do you make the ticket $75 and charge people an extra $25 for the bag? Or do make the ticket $100 and knock $25 off the price when the passenger shows he doesn’t have a bag? The end result is exactly the same. All passengers pay for themselves, and only the people with bags pay for them.

Of course government is far more complex, I’m just playing with perceptions today.

How about we bought bought the same phone. You got a rebate, but I didn’t. Does that mean I paid for part of your phone?

Airline tickets are subject to tax.

Bag fees are not.

Look for that to change in the future.

“Does that mean I paid for part of your phone?”

yes!

(thank you)

you probably did not submit the rebate claim.

“How about we bought bought the same phone. You got a rebate, but I didn’t. Does that mean I paid for part of your phone?”

as a tax person…i just care about effective rates.

if my effective thax rate is 26% and warren buffets is 10%…houston…we have a problem.

Your lame effort to kill SS and Medicare aren’t working.

Find a new schtick.

No, my logic holds up fine. Even if they took more money from you by other mechanisms, and over different times, the key issue is that the government is giving you money BACK, that they don’t have to give you back. They don’t give ME money back for the MID, because I rent. Do I feel as if my taxes have been “increased” because I rent? Not really. I feel as if the government hasn’t spent money to reward me for buying a house — yet. It’s a different angle to look at things, I admit.

To answer Skye’s point of all money belonging to the government: Well, I don’t believe “all” my money belongs to them. I would say that 20% of my money belongs to them. (or whatever the tax rate is). Now, if I give them 20%, and they choose to reward me by spending some of that 20% back on me, well I like that. But the point is that once they have everybody’s 20%, it’s up to Congress to decide where that 20% goes, whether to me or to somebody else.

If you guys can divide up where that 20% should go that makes everyone happy, there are some folks downtown that would interested in hearing from you…

the key issue is that the government is giving you money BACK

And with that you’re wrong.

You’re working under the assumption of employer withholding taxes each pay period, and no concept of deductions/filling out a W-4.

It’s very possible for an individual to claim enough deductions on their W-4 such that they don’t get any money “back” from the government. Likewise, it’s possible for one to make estimated payments quarterly instead and not get any money “back”.

A deduction is not a credit. It’s not something guaranteed to you by the gov’t, all the gov’t is giving people is the difference between taxes paid and taxes owed. That is not gov’t spending in any way.

And you’re working under the assumption that the mortgage interest deduction is actually related to income taxes.

(waiting for Polly to smash me to pieces here…)

Say government sets up a new agency, called MID. Every December, you fill out a MID form with how much you paid in mortgage interest that year. You mail it to MID. A few weeks later, MID mails you a $$ check and a note that says “thank you for building community when you bought your house.” The amount MID sends you depends on some funny formula.

MID would have nothing to do with the IRS. It wouldn’t matter if you planned your W-4 to have not enough witholding (you pay), too much witholding (you get a refund), or perfect witholding (1040 says “0″). The IRS took your tax money and put it into the Uncle Sam kitty. MID paid you out of the same Uncle Sam kitty. (Money is fungible.) Is MID “letting you keep your money,” or is MID “government spending?”

The confusion arises when Congress uses the IRS channels as the mechanism to dole out that government spending* instead of setting up or breaking down a new agency at each time Congress thinks up a new incentive. The process is so convoluted that people look only at the net gain or loss, and declare it a tax decrease or tax hike. I’m deconvoluting the net back into its two steps — taxing in and spending out — just to make people think!

Lastly, I would argue that a tax deduction, conceptually, is exactly the same as a tax credit, only with a little “k” constant in the equation. Say I pay a tax rate of 20%. I have a tax deduction of $100. I get $100 x 0.20 = $20 back. Doesn’t that effectively amount to a tax CREDIT of $20? That is, $20 of government spending?

———–
*The issue is also convoluted because the “funny formula” used by my fictional MID agency also happens to involve your income tax bracket %. However, conceptually, it would be pretty easy to define a fixed MID formula and decouple MID from IRS entirely.

How about looking at the MID from a conservative’s point of view. The MID encourages sheeple to pull equity out of their home(because of the tax advantages)therefore, the sheeple do not have a mortgage-free home when retirement age comes. Then they become dependent on a gov’t ENTITLEMENT(SocSec). We can’t have that can we?

The concept of deductions and credits being economically equivalent to direct government spending is a long established rule for tax economists. Both create incentives to favor certain types of behavior (buying a house, giving money to charity, growing corn for ethanol, etc.) If you are talking about vast numbers of people being eligible, it is a little easier to put things in a tax deduction because most people file taxes. It is harder to get people to properly access and file a whole new form than to properly fill out a new line or section of a form they already fill out. Besides, why create a new infrastructure (people, computers, processing, rules about privacy, etc.) when one already exists?

To claim that there is a substantive difference between eliminating a deduction and direct government spending is political rhetoric.

Oxide - two points:

And you’re working under the assumption that the mortgage interest deduction is actually related to income taxes.

I would say it’s far more than an assumption. The MID is a factor when computing your AGI to be used for the purposes of income taxes. So yes, it’s absolutely related. I get your hypothetical, and perhaps that’s a better solution if the goal really is community-building. But if you look at the history of the MID, that is not the case. It used to be that all interest was deductible, and as it stands it does involve the IRS.

Lastly, I would argue that a tax deduction, conceptually, is exactly the same as a tax credit, only with a little “k” constant in the equation.

That may be true assuming someone pays more in taxes than they would get with the credit. However, consider a MID of $10k on an income of $5k. Now consider a tax credit of $10k on an income of $5k. What’s the net result?

In the case of a credit, the tax”payer”(hardly) gets a $5k check from the pocket of “real” taxpayers. In the case of a deduction, it’s just a question of how much of your own money you get to keep.

Okay, a third point on the “government spending” idea. You go to the store to buy a coffee. It’s $1.50. You give the clerk $20. Is them giving you your $18.50 in change “spending” on the part of the coffee shop?

To claim that there is a substantive difference between eliminating a deduction and direct government spending is political rhetoric.

I would disagree. Perhaps if gov’t income and expenditures were in line, but given that the two are not connected, there are two fundamental differences between “government spending” and eliminating a tax deduction.

If the government spends more, what happens? Taxpayers are taxed the same. The debt goes up. And the gov’s outflows increase.

If a tax deduction is eliminated? Individuals keep a smaller % of their income, govt’s outflow stays the same, but income increases.

Your characterization seems to ignore other persons in the equation besides the gov’ts balance sheet in net.

No, drumminj. I’m not ignoring anything. You are falling prey to the idea that money you have in your pocket is somehow more important than money you could be paid for responding to an incentive in the future. Except for the time value of money (and the emotional factor of getting “extra” and the fact that once you have enough for basic needs your next dollar of income is of less marginal value than the earlier ones), they are the same.

You are falling prey to the idea that money you have in your pocket is somehow more important than money you could be paid for responding to an incentive in the future.

Please explain? The money I have in my pocket is referencing the lower tax liability, right? What is the money I could be paid for responding to an incentive in the future?

And I wouldn’t dismiss the time value of money so easily, but I have no problem ignoring it for the purposes of this discussion.

It used to be that all interest was deductible…The MID is a factor when computing your AGI

In other words, “it used to be” that the government spent money to reward people who paid interest of any kind. Now they only spend money on people who pay interest on homes. That doesn’t change the concept that it is STILL government spending. And yes, once you use the IRS as a conduit to spend on government rewards, it’s easy to tap into other features of the IRS tax structure. However, it can easily be decoupled.
———–

In the case of a credit, the tax”payer”(hardly) gets a $5k check from the pocket of “real” taxpayers. In the case of a deduction, it’s just a question of how much of your own money you get to keep.

There you go again about “how much of your own money you get to keep.” But that said, I agree that there are two kinds of “tax credit.” There is a tax credit where the government looks at what you did, and they like it so much (say, you did solar panel research) that they spent 100% of that money back on you, or effectively gave it to you for free.* This is a “credit.” There is another tax credit where they look at what you did, they like it somewhat (say you gave to Salvation Army), so they spend 20% of that money back on you. This is a “deduction.” drummin, you can slice the semantics any way you want, but the fact remains that you paid your full taxes and they spent money back on you — separately — because they liked what you did. If it turns out that the government spends more on you than you put in in full taxes, what difference does that make in the concept?
————-

Okay, a third point on the “government spending” idea. You go to the store to buy a coffee. It’s $1.50. You give the clerk $20. Is them giving you your $18.50 in change “spending” on the part of the coffee shop?

Nope. The coffee shop doesn’t have a “right” to your $20, because they’re only selling you $1.50 of coffee. However, they do have the right to $1.50. So, let’s continue the scenario. You order $1.50 in coffee. You hand over your $20 bill. They give you $18.50 in change. Then they go to make your coffee, but you say, “Wait, I forgot, I brought my own mug.” They say, “Great! You’re eco-conscious! We like that! We’ll give you 5 cents back for the mug.” It’s a bit of a pain to open the register again, but they open it and give you a nickel. Effectively, your coffee cost $1.45, but it took two separate transactions: 1) you bought the coffee and got an $18.50 “refund,” and 2) they spent a nickel on you because you brought your own mug.

Now wouldn’t it have been easier if you had shown them your own mug when you ordered the coffee, instead of waiting until after you paid? Then they could have refunded you an $18.55 instead, and open the register only once. Of course it’s easier! That’s precisely why government rewards through the tax system, it’s one NET transaction. However, no matter what the mechanism is for payment, the coffee shop had made a separate decision to “spend” a nickel on you, to reward for bringing you own mug.

———–
*Instead of a 100% credit on the tax return, sometimes it’s easier to pay 100% directly. We just saw this happen in the Obama admin. Originally, renewable energy companies got a tax deduction, say 20%, because the tax code was the easiest way for the gov to spend 20% back on the companies. Then, Obama realized more people would do renewables if just gave away (spent) the money, and converted it to a direct grant. It’s still spending, the only difference is whether Obama was spending 20% or 100%.

Nope. The coffee shop doesn’t have a “right” to your $20, because they’re only selling you $1.50 of coffee.

This has become a ridiculous argument about semantics. You seem to imply here that the coffee shop doesn’t have a right to your money, but the gov’t does. That makes it clear.

If taking money from an individual and then giving some of it back to them is considered “spending” in your eyes, that’s fine. I disagree, and it appears inconsistent with how you feel about the coffee shop, but it really isn’t worth arguing.

I implied no such thing; in fact I contradicted it directly. Please read again:

———
The coffee shop doesn’t have a “right” to your $20, because they’re only selling you $1.50 of coffee. However, they do have the right to $1.50.
———

And yes, the government does have a right to our money, in the form of taxes. If you think that the government does NOT have a right to at least SOME of your money, then NJ renter is right. You belong in another country.

And of course this is an argument about semantics! This started when Lip said that a tax break “allowed him to keep more of his money,” which is a very nice SEMANTIC logical fallacy.

Kirisdad…you are mistaken.

the irs has a provision to keep people from furthering tax deductions through refinancings….interest tracing rules.

“the key issue is that the government is giving you money BACK, that they don’t have to give you back.”

No, that’s wrong. If the law says they have to give it back, guess what? They HAVE to.

You are also wrong about the “giving back” part. The home buyer has the money, it’s his money, the governmnet gets it when he pays his tax bill. The government is not “giving back” anything.

If the law says they have to give it back

Laws do not appear by themselves. When I “they don’t have to give the money back,” I meant that Congess DOESN’T HAVE TO pass a law which gives money back.

As for “paying the tax bill,” I went over that point repeatedly. Some people got it the first time, some got it the fifth time. You’re still having trouble, but I think I’ve explained it enough.

‘Do I feel as if my taxes have been “increased” because I rent? Not really. I feel as if the government hasn’t spent money to reward me for buying a house — yet. It’s a different angle to look at things, I admit.’

Clearly you are neither sufficiently wealthy nor sufficiently poor to have that entitlement mentality which makes you think those welfare payments belonged to you to begin with.

You must belong to the long-overtaxed, -overworked middle class.

Wow, oxide. You’ve very patiently laid out why taking away the MID is NOT “raising taxes.”

I can’t believe people are still arguing with you about this. It’s pretty simple to understand. Thank you for your explanations.

when houses were much more affordable the MID was further to the “left”.

Agreed, oxide is correct.

The top 1% get 70% of capital gains and dividends. If one looks only at taxable capital gains and dividends (ie most of the cap and div gains for the middle class occ in retirement accounts) They earn a much higher percentage. Thus if they cut taxes on capital gains and dividends almost all of that goes to the top 1%. The top 400 income earners pay 16% effective tax rates and that’s on the money they haven’t sheltered overseas. GE pays nothing.

So yes I’m F’n resentfull. They get all the bailouts, They pay lower tax rates, they control my gov. They have no right to their wealth because they F’n stole it or accepted stolen gains that will come out of the hide of eveyone in the bottom 98%. Inflation in this case is another tax on the bottom 90% who can’t hedge their income.

Are you really that jealous/resentful of the people with more money than you that you think they have no rights to their wealth?

Ahhhhhhhh,

The the AM radio”jealous of people with more money” card…….commonly used by those who hate progressive taxation, can’t argue well against it and know most Americans approve of it.

Are you really that deluded to think that you’re doing the right thing by championing the cause of those who enslave you and millions of others?

We don’t expect an answer from you but your sanctimonious pandering and arrogance is well noted.

Resentful? Hardly. But I would rather not live in a country like Mexico, where the wealth disparity is so large that the people are left fending for themselves.

That the Republicans somehow convinced the poor and the middle class to vote against their own interest is their greatest achievement and the greatest con pulled over the voting population of this country.

No, you are highly unlikely to be rich one day, because we are a country that ranks at the bottom when it comes to social mobility.

No, your children are highly unlikely to be rich when they grow up, again because we lack social mobility.

No, your grand children are highly unlikely to become rich either; see above.

No, you are highly unlikely to accumulate enough wealth in your life time such that your estate will consist of more than $5 million (exemption level for estate tax). Indeed less than 99.7% of the estates pay any tax at all and many people will outlive their wealth and die penniless.

No, you are highly unlikely to become the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. The part of these people’s lives not entrenched in mainstream narratives is that (1) Bill Gates’ father was a prominent lawyer (named part of Preston Gates) and his mother served on the board of various banks; and (2) Buffet’s father, a Congressman, brought him to visit the stock exchange for the first time when he was 8–a perk many “common folks” did not enjoy in his day.

No, you are highly unlikely to save enough money or gain enough from investment to fund your own retirement. At some point you will have to depend on the government “handout” be it S.S. or Medicare.

No, you are highly unlike to hit the lotto.

Not long ago I sat in the same conference room with a prominent economist who advised the Bush administration, and was on the short list for the Fed Chair nomination after Greenspan’s retirement. I told him, “You guys are really good at convincing the poor people to vote against their own economic interests.” To which he replied, “Of course; I was the one who advised the President that he should never use the term ‘rich people.’ Instead, they are ‘entrepreneurs.’”

You may, from your own present situations, disagree with all the social safety net policies. But do realize that one day, when you need these the most, it would be too late to begin the advocacy for their support. I, for one, would prefer not to see old people kicked onto the street and die the day they out live their life time savings.

But on the other hand, those old Teabaggers forced “Medicare for All” off the table. So f*#$ them.

‘So f*#$ them’

You can make your points without being crude.

“Jealous of those who make more money”

no. i want to be one.

“Aware that the rich need to pay more taxes than the poor because that’s the only way it can work”

yes. i want to be rich enough to complain about that.

The top 1% get 70% of capital gains and dividends. If one looks only at taxable capital gains and dividends (ie most of the cap and div gains for the middle class occ in retirement accounts) They earn a much higher percentage

I can’t dispute or support this - I don’t know the exact numbers. I’ll just assume they’re correct, and I’d say “so?” In and of itself this is fine, IMO. No one else is “entitled” to the cap gains…if they have money invested, they deserve fair compensation (I’m sure we disagree on what’s “fair”, so let’s avoid that for now).

Thus if they cut taxes on capital gains and dividends almost all of that goes to the top 1%

K, that’s fine. I don’t agree with cap gains taxes being lower than income taxes - personally I don’t think income should be taxed at all. However, we’re talking about the MID here, not relative tax rates of dividends versus interest and income from labor.

The top 400 income earners pay 16% effective tax rates and that’s on the money they haven’t sheltered overseas.

And as stated above, I don’t agree with the way our tax code is structured. So no argument here.

GE pays nothing.

Surely you see that a corporation and an individual are very different when it comes to tax treatment, no?

They have no right to their wealth because they F’n stole it or accepted stolen gains that will come out of the hide of eveyone in the bottom 98%

I think you’re painting with a very broad brush here. Is that true of some of the “top 1%”? Sure. All of them or even the majority of them? Doubtful. Actors, professional athletes, entrepreneurs who start and own their own successful business?

Honestly, I’d respect this position more if attempts to “punish the rich” were actually targeted at this top 1% you have so much scorn for. But all the proposals I see suggested are about the top income tax bracket, which affects a much larger swath of people - most of them working class individuals. Why target people who work hard and happen to be successful just to get at the “evil wealthy” you characterize?

Rather than argue against the MID, why not focus on tax rates for dividends? Or taxing wealth over a certain amount rather than income?

Inflation in this case is another tax on the bottom 90% who can’t hedge their income.

Sure, but does that mean that those of us in the top 10% but not in the top 1% (a HUGE discrepancy in wealth and income there) should suffer as a result? Sure, I can hedge my wealth to some degree, but I still work 2 jobs, 50+ hours a week, and my income is in $US. Rather than target people like me, why not address the source of the problem - the federal reserve. And the current tax policy. And the lack of enforcement of existing laws and regulations?

I, for one, would prefer not to see old people kicked onto the street and die the day they out live their life time savings.

And you’re welcome to take action to prevent that, and help those. There was a time not too long ago where the gov’t didn’t forcefully take funds from citizens to pay to support old people with no savings. People voluntarily did such things, and as such, everyone’s liberty remained in tact, as they were voluntary actions.

Please explain why you must force everyone else to adhere to your wants and needs? Just because I want something doesn’t mean I feel everyone else must do the same thing, or must provide for my wants. Yet that is the implication of your stance here.

You’re assuming that I want any of the things listed above..that I aspire to be “rich”, or to sit at a table with Bill Gates (I did eat dinner next to Steve Ballmer once - does that count??)

You’re missing the difference in philosophy here, and projecting an incorrect motivation on me.

I want individual freedom. I believe I’m fundamentally entitled to the fruits of my labor - not only 75% of it. And when the chips are down, I don’t expect anyone else to bail me out. That’s the thing about principles, and it’s quite the logical fallacy to assume I don’t support such government programs simply because I’m not in a place where I need them, and will support them if I am in a place where I would benefit.

It’s also wrong to assume I don’t believe in the same morals as you - I just don’t believe I (or the government) has the right to force others to support those ideals.

+ 1000 NJ Renter

“I want individual freedom. I believe I’m fundamentally entitled to the fruits of my labor - not only 75% of it.”

Wrong society then. Rousseau has already elegantly addressed this argument in “The Social Contract,” an piece that heavily influenced the foundation of this country.

And what you conceive as “fruits of my labor” is in fact supported by numerous invisible societal benefits and “handouts” so pervasive that you have stopped appreciating them. Remember, “No man is an island” and, though as we would like to contribute to ourselves alone the achievements we reach as individuals, without the support and benefit of living in this society, it would be impossible for you to achieve the same.

That you get to keep 75% of the “fruits of my labor” is a small price to pay for the benefits you receive from living in this society–otherwise, in a society without the benefit we offer, even if you get to keep 100% of the “fruits of my labor,” it may be the case that these “fruits” pales in comparison as the 75% you so bitterly complained of.

Using an example from Rousseau, in the state of nature you get to keep as much land as you can physically defend. But when you age and wither, that amount correspondingly drops. But, through the benefit of living in this society, the state will defend on your behalf all the properties that rightfully belong to you, thus enabling the weakest person to own and defend as much land as he/she is lawfully entitled to. Keeping “merely” 75% of the “fruits of my labor” is a small price to pay for such a benefit. But we often fail to take account for these social benefits when we consider “fruits of my labor.”

And indeed, the “social” part of the social contract means there is no opting out–otherwise we begin to run into adverse selection and free-riding problems.

Wrong society then. Rousseau has already elegantly addressed this argument in “The Social Contract,” an piece that heavily influenced the foundation of this country.

wrong society? Perhaps you wish to reconcile that with our constitution and the bill of rights?

That you get to keep 75% of the “fruits of my labor” is a small price to pay for the benefits you receive from living in this society

That’s an incredibly subjective statement. Who are you to say what’s a worthwhile price or not? Let’s say you are - what price should each individual pay? Why a % of income earned from labor?

in a society without the benefit we offer, even if you get to keep 100% of the “fruits of my labor,” it may be the case that these “fruits” pales in comparison as the 75% you so bitterly complained of.

Possibly, but again you assume my goal is to “get ahead” in some way and amass wealth, rather than living free with rights and liberties. A false assumption.

And indeed, the “social” part of the social contract means there is no opting out–otherwise we begin to run into adverse selection and free-riding problems.

You seem to think that whatever the gov’t dictates is somehow *THE* social contract, the only possible and sustainable social contract.

If that were the case, this country would have ceased to exist 200 years ago. Yet it miraculously didn’t.

And I’d argue that the “social” contract is in fact something one can opt in or out of. There are consequences of both choices, but one should be free to make that choice.

No, you are highly unlikely to accumulate enough wealth in your life time such that your estate will consist of more than $5 million (exemption level for estate tax). Indeed less than 99.7% of the estates pay any tax at all and many people will outlive their wealth and die penniless.

————————
5mm puts you in the top 1 million (of 300 million) people in the US, maybe even a little higher. I mostly agree with your points, but still think it’s odd the way we keep moving the marker upwards to what counts as rich.
Sure it’s common to say that a million dollars doesn’t buy much anymore, but since there are only 15mm out of 300mm, it seems like buys enough to me and is simiarly unattainable.

Please explain why you must force everyone else to adhere to your wants and needs?

Drummminj, You’re not going to believe this. It’s crazy I know but check this out…

We, the USA, as a country, as a society chose to institute Social Security, Medicare and a bunch of other stuff that would help old, sick and needy people. I know it’s nuts but we did it! It’s even on Google now.

We even voted on it and stuff. Because of liberty and FREEDOM. ( i like saying freedom).

Oh……so anyway, the American people through their representatives in Congress voted to have those things in this thing we call a DEMOCRACY, (that’s rad to say too)

I know “Congress” sounds a little socialist because it’s a bunch of people coming up with stuff but anyway we chose to have those safety-nets because we were FREE to do it within the parameters of our Constitution, or I should say CONSTITUTION. (if you put the word “Constitution in blog posts, you sound really patriotic)

But you see Drummmmminj, that’s the thing about principles… Americans were FREE to decide what we want as a society and we did it. No you are in the minority but that’s OK, you still have the FREEDOM to whine and moan about how the super-rich only can get a few billion dollars off the FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. (that’s a good line too).

So you are free to whine and moan about it but as the minority you can’t FORCE us–you can’t make us by FORCE conform to your failed UTOPIAN trickle down, supply-side, crony-capitalist ideology.

Why? Because of freedom!

Umm….this is about keeping the money taken from you by the government.

“…that you think they have no rights to their wealth?

So, why don’t the Ultra-wealthy just buy the lethal weapons needed and give them to a “voluntary” military and just ask those US soldiers to keep dying for America so that “they” (Ultra-wealthy) can not-b-bothered with such “taxing issues” and get back to the enjoyable things that they like to enjoy.

Kochchew!…”bless you”

And indeed, the “social” part of the social contract means there is no opting out–otherwise we begin to run into adverse selection and free-riding problems.

One heck of a post.

I don’t think some posters are aware of much American History before the Tea Party and the Koch Brothers.

(but they do say “freedom” and “constitution” a lot)

i am beginning to think drumminj is just one *socialist* person like most responding here. he just want these *principles* so well eloquently articulated here, laid out for everyone. thank you.

Great discussions folks!

Also kudos to you NJ renter. J6P seems to think that someday his ship will come in, and heaven help the taxman who tries to take some cargo off the ship. Never mind that the rich hijacked all those ships far out at sea long before J6P ever saw the ship. And this is why the super rich tend to stay in power. The richer you are, the farther out you can hijack a ship, to the point where J6P doesn’t even know it exists.

But please guys, do not beat on drummin as “arrogant.” Drummin is laying out good points and good arguments and at least trying to defend his views. We are all learning because of it. That takes a lot of effort and intelligence. Save the nasty labels for the closed-minded one-liner talking points (which I admit I am guilty of too).

But drummin, maybe we started out with a bare-bones government as laid out in the Constitution. But as the years went by, I guess we got tired of watching the old and sick die in the streets, and we got tired watching the young go illiterate and beg in the same streets. And let’s be honest, it’s a lot of trouble and expense to take care of people, and some of them had no family anyway. So, little by little, Representives looked at the dying in the streets, looked at the “general welfare” section right at the top of the parchment, and began to pass laws to take care of the poor and take the burden off churches and families. Poorhouses, state-run jails with some humanity at least, then public schools, New Deal programs, and culminating with (too?) big programs like SS and Medicare.

This, by the way, is all perfectly Constitutional. We elected Representitives, they passed laws. And guess what, we as citizens must have liked it, because we never elected enough representitives to repeal those laws. Until now…

“5mm puts you in the top 1 million (of 300 million) people in the US, maybe even a little higher. I mostly agree with your points, but still think it’s odd the way we keep moving the marker upwards to what counts as rich.
Sure it’s common to say that a million dollars doesn’t buy much anymore, but since there are only 15mm out of 300mm, it seems like buys enough to me and is simiarly unattainable.”

Slightly different comparison. You are talking about $5mm for overall population; some of these are people who are in their peak earning years and may be at the very top of the wealth they will ever have.

By contrast, a “estate” is created only after a person dies. Presumably in his/her older years, with much diminished earning and increased healthcare costs over about two decades of living, it is much more likely that the wealth would have diminished substantially when the person dies.

It’s shocking to me there is an argument going on about whether we should even have a government structure.

I used to be a republican/libertarian”ish” in my younger days.

Over the years I came to view my “conservative” peers as mainly narcissitic, self-centered, juvenile, and in many cases sociopathic to varying degree and I think we can all see those traits laid out in this blog day after day. What I see, and I’m sorry if you’re offended, but what I see is that these people tend to literally care about no one except themselves. Maybe their families. Perhaps this is simply the “human condition” for a great swath of the population.

Many think theses Unites States just magically happened and that social community and social safety nets are not important. I find this an interesting but juvenile mindset, on the order of a 5 year old. People who haven’t learned to share and get along yet. Back to the 1800s!

Sad.

As wealth gets concentrated so does political power drumminj. Expect to see the elite come after your wealth at some point as well. This is really not a top 1% vs bottom 99% problem. It’s a top 0.1% vs 99.9% problem. Many near the top delude themselves that they are the elite and benefit from the poliicies of our government. The reality is you work two jobs, it’s likely that your jobs depend on a strong middle class. The elite don’t depend on that now as they have globilized their wealth. Their wealth depends on control of gov and natural resources.

And when the chips are down, I don’t expect anyone else to bail me out.

You’re young, you have a good-paying job, you bounced back from unemployment, you don’t seem to be saddled with a spouse or expensive children. In fact you and I are a lot alike in that respect.

However, I know full well to not count on luck. I know full well that my life savings could be wiped out in a single medical moment, be it by truck or virus. I do not know what my 65th year will hold. And while I expect to have reasonably more fruits of hard work (college degrees) than someone who didn’t work as hard, I also understand that “working hard” and wages are NOT linear by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I want the lower-paid to have nothing, which is the direction we’re going in. I believe we all deserve some form of general welfare — gee where have I heard that before — and that’s why I pay taxes.

But, no, I’m not going to “donate” to the IRS, so quit the smart remark.

I don’t see the differential. So you can make up to 5 million, live like a king and not pass as much on? That somehow makes you different from other rich people? I guess it does in that they were wily enough to pass their money on from shoemaker to risk taker to list maker, and so on.

$5mm at 4% gets you $200k a year in income without even touching principle. That again puts you in the top ~1.5% or so in yearly income. If you are a decent money manager, you could nestle that into tax free accounts. If you are spending that much in retirement (no need to drive back and forth to a job, no kids to put through school) then I don’t really see a legitimate difference.

I find this an interesting but juvenile mindset, on the order of a 5 year old. People who haven’t learned to share and get along yet.

Nice, mature comment.

You do realize that people can care about others and help them out without involving the government, or forcing others to do so.

You, like many here, seem to think the only way such things can happen is via government programs. And then lay personal attacks on those of us who speak up that this isn’t a requirement.

Let me ask you to consider something - how many animals are helped by private organizations? How many rescue groups out there take care of abandoned animals - horses, dogs, cats, ferrets, etc - who donate their time, money, efforts, and home to help? Who donate to people who own animals but can’t afford to feed them?

In case you weren’t aware, the answer is A LOT. And the government isn’t involved (Aside from 501(c)3 status).

I donate time, effort, and money to these organizations because I believe in their mission. I don’t force anyone else to do so, and I don’t think it’s the government’s job.

Yet somehow, when it comes to people, the government is the only one capable of providing support, and individuals shouldn’t have a choice?

As wealth gets concentrated so does political power drumminj.

Agreed this is unfortunately the case. There are (IMO) better fixes to this problem - reforming government - rather than increasing taxation and forcing wealth re-distribution.

Expect to see the elite come after your wealth at some point as well.

Perhaps, but all I see these days is liberals/progressives trying to commandeer the fruits of my labor via the strong arm of the government.

Over the years I came to view my “conservative” peers as mainly narcissitic, self-centered, juvenile, and in many cases sociopathic to varying degree and I think we can all see those traits laid out in this blog day after day. What I see, and I’m sorry if you’re offended, but what I see is that these people tend to literally care about no one except themselves. Maybe their families. Perhaps this is simply the “human condition” for a great swath of the population.

Count me as one who agrees with the above.

Perhaps, but all I see these days is liberals/progressives trying to commandeer the fruits of my labor via the strong arm of the government.

What a big fat joke. You write like a mindless talking point and I don’t care if I say it.

Somehow this board switched from simple economics and housing discussion to politics. I remember the days circa 2004 and 2005, when I would come and learn a great deal about economics. This is where I first learnt the terms such as swaps and CDO, and now it makes me look really smart in front of my bosses.

But this board is now dominated by conservative/Tea leaning commentators. I wonder whether it’s because many liberals feel like I do–I’m tired and frustrated by the current situation and generally refrained from speaking. We elected a left-leaning President and majorities of both houses only to see the policies stalled at every turn. Of course, most of the obstacles came in the form of Senate Republican minority; but we have seem plenty of infighting as well as pandering and lack of political courage.

So I’m tired, and I honestly don’t know what to say to an old Teabagger carrying a sign with “Keep Government Out of My Medicare” while he lives off of social security checks. Or another sick person bagging for money to treat his illness after he attends a protest against medical reform. I don’t know how to intelligently engage that person or how to convince him, that if he had dug a little deeper below the surface and the one-liners, there is another layer of truth, albeit more complex, that can be revealed.

And I prefer to not fight dirty. I don’t think it’s fair to take hours of footage of NPR personnel and then manipulate the tapes to show the speaker in the worst light; I don’t like the use of “Nazi” in every accusation against political opponents. And I don’t think statements such as “the U.S. has the world’s highest corporate tax rate” is fair without the caveat that over 70% of the U.S. corporations pay not income taxes.

So I’m tired of fighting, and I don’t comment much here. It just seems so futile as we are unlikely to convince each other to change our views. To me, the “big government liberalism” can be beautifully summarized in these words:

“No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

“I want individual freedom. I believe I’m fundamentally entitled to the fruits of my labor - not only 75% of it. And when the chips are down, I don’t expect anyone else to bail me out. ”

Then go buy an island, and die on it. Of some easily preventable disease.

Your problem is, you don’t listen to Jesus. someday, you may truly know the truth of what he said. Like, “All that you have, has been given to you.”

Ungrateful. Lets see you make your money, with no roads, and no educated labor force. Go build your onw cruddy country.

And all I see these days is republican conservatives trying to shut down the services I use and pay for and pocket the money.

And it really is that simple.

Your problem is, you don’t listen to Jesus.

Then go buy an island, and die on it

are you putting this forth as an example that you do??

Your problem is, you don’t listen to Jesus.

Right-wingers don’t listen much to Jesus these days, especially the really religious ones.

You do realize that people can care about others and help them out without involving the government, or forcing others to do so.

Spoken like a “ “TrueDeceiver™” repubican dressed in Amish clothes who lives day by day like a Jesus-I’ve-sinned-again democrapt. What?, you want a “TrueMeritBadge™” now?

Your “compassion” reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeks!

I take back what I said earlier. On second thought, I think renters and anyone who owns a home valued at less that $1m dollars should not get any kind of housing assistance or mortgage interest deduction, while anyone who owns a home valued at $1m or more should not only get a mortgage interest deduction but should also get the full value of all their mortgage payments deducted. In fact, I propose those earning more than $1m a year should have to pay no income tax whatsoever.

This would be good for society, because if anyone has to pay less to fund the government, we all collectively benefit.

“Right-wingers don’t listen much to Jesus these days, especially the really religious ones.”

They never did. They merely hijacked the religion in North America and wore the label but rejected every single Christian concept. There is a growing movement to run these people out of churches everywhere and I’m having a real good time helping.

“Agreed this is unfortunately the case. There are (IMO) better fixes to this problem - reforming government - rather than increasing taxation and forcing wealth re-distribution.”

But you’ve established long ago that “wealth redistribution” is acceptable to you so long as it moves in the direction you favor.

How do you reconcile this?

“fruits of my labor”

drumminj, what I am hearing is that you don’t like income tax. How do you propose that government provide for fulfilling its duties and what do you believe are the duties of government?

I talked to a man the other day who wanted to do away with property tax. When I asked him the above question, he stated that sales tax should be the vehicle and that about 25% should do it.

There are pitfalls and merits to any tax structure. Washington state has no income tax and relies primarily on property and sales taxes. Property and sales taxes are easier to collect than income taxes. There are fewer entities to collect from. But if property taxes are too high, individuals can find their property taken for non-payment. Sales tax can be made less regressive by not taxing essentials, but too high and it can put a damper on sales. And in an economic downturn, revenues drop.

I hear the charity card played from time to time. In an economic downturn, charity revenue drops just when more services are needed. And I believe the same level of services will not be provided through charity that are now provided by the government. I suspect your answer will be that that means that government is providing services that people don’t want to pay for. (I will let you confirm this) But I am not sure that is entirely true.

If money that is not collected by the government for social services is instead only partially given to charities, then I think we will see more bubbles. People who know that they have to provide for their old age and will not have a social safety net, will be more likely to invest their discretionary money than to contribute to charities. They will be more likely to participate in manias as they chase larger investment returns. A lot of them will run into trouble at some point (bad investments, medical problems, extended unemployment) and find their savings gone.

I want individual freedom. I believe I’m fundamentally entitled to the fruits of my labor - not only 75% of it.

Blah, blah, blah,…laminate your wisdom on 4×5 note cards for the ages.

Larry Flynt is in your camp pal,…what’s your objection now buddy?

This Larry Flynt:
Larry Claxton Flynt, Jr. (born November 1, 1942) is an American publisher

“Perhaps, but all I see these days is liberals/progressives trying to commandeer the fruits of my labor via the strong arm of the government.”

All you need to do is look at the wealth distribution in this country to know who is stealing your wealth. The workers of this country are taking a beating. The elite are gaining strength. Unions have all but been destroyed.

Like I said , I suspect your job, the value of your property , and the value of your friends and families jobs and property depend on a strong middle and upper middle income population. The top 0.1% don’t care about such things.

drumminj, what I am hearing is that you don’t like income tax. How do you propose that government provide for fulfilling its duties and what do you believe are the duties of government?

I am busy tonight and all day tomorrow, so really don’t have time to respond to this right now. I do appreciate your respectful approach to this, however. I’d like to give you a response, but just can’t do it right now…

I talked to a man the other day who wanted to do away with property tax. When I asked him the above question, he stated that sales tax should be the vehicle and that about 25% should do it.

I’d agree with that opinion. I’d much prefer a consumption tax than an “ownership tax”. Being taxed for owning something (and being able to have it taken away as a result) undermines the whole concept of ownership, IMO.

Hopefully I’ll find time to respond to the rest of this in the next few days. Thank you for your respectful approach to this subject (contrasted with most of the other responses in this thread).

Somehow this board switched from simple economics and housing discussion to politics.

Agree, unfortunately.

But this board is now dominated by conservative/Tea leaning commentators.

Strongly disagree. Actually count the posts on this thread or any other with a lot of responses and I think you’ll find the vast majority support the left. It’s odd to me that you guys can have a big majority and still feel dominated.

Not so much dominated, Carl. It’s just frustrating to see thread after thread of long, well-thought-out logic-dominated post answered with the equivalent of a nya nyah nyah bumper sticker.

And I’d argue that the “social” contract is in fact something one can opt in or out of. There are consequences of both choices, but one should be free to make that choice.

Well then, please give a report on the current persecution of my Amish cousins, the one’s living in Ohio USA.

drumminj- One day, maybe, you’ll realize you couldn’t earn your income without the tax-paying society within which it is earned.

If not, then why don’t you make like a free marketer and move to a non-taxed, modern country?

Because there’s no such place? Well, isn’t that odd.

“How do you propose that government provide for fulfilling its duties…”

Isn’t this where the Fed’s printing press technology comes in handy? In the post-Reagan Republican world, wherein anyone who suggests honest taxation is politically tarred and feathered, a license to print can quickly fix any budget gap.

Har!

At what point was propping up housing prices inserted into the Fed’s policy mandate? I want to see it in writing; please post if you have the evidence…

Competition starts off well, but in the end leads toward monopoly, especially for “needs” like food. A fully unfettered functioning market will eventually starve the poor.

Competition starts off well, but in the end leads toward monopoly

Agreed. Though I haven’t witnessed this with regards to food, at least at the retail level. I have 6 different grocery stores within 2 miles of my house.

Now if we’re talking food production, there are certainly issues there. I’d argue a lot of that has to do with gov’t interference (patenting of genetically modified seeds).

because barrier to entry is cheap.

Though I haven’t witnessed this with regards to food

…maybe because we DON’T have a “functioning non-subsidized market” ?

(by “functional” I assume you mean invisible-hand capitalistic…)

oops, sorry, didn’t read your post right. Food’s kind of an exception. Because we need so much food, and often, you can’t centralize the stores into a single behomoth stoe and make customers drive to it. So it’s hard to go to monopoly in retail. But, as you said, the middlemen are using the huge distribution warehouses.

Super-Target, and Super-Walmart?

If they had their way, they would be the only grocery stores in town.

Wow, you got a deal. I just had some blood work done, they checked for 7 things I think- and the uninsured price was $300.

In Colorado:

The list price on a medical bill is about as useful as the standard price on the back of the door in your hotel room. No one pays the list price.

The bad thing about medical is that you will have to make financial while you are sick and on meds. Not some that is very easy to do.

not as loose as my spelling abilities.

A compromise that would get 4 republican senators to agree to a budget that means they would face overwhelming opposition in their next election. Maybe you can find 4 who don’t have an election coming up for another 4 years or are planning to retire or who don’t fear a primary challenge at all. And maybe those 4 will be people who like the democratic budget enough to vote for it with a few tweaks for their state. Maybe.

Or maybe not.

Except, of course that a majority is only as good as party loyalty. There are ALWAYS congressmen and senators of both parties vowing to vote no unless their policies, or pork barrel, or perceived self-interest are pandered to.

Or maybe not.

at this point we’re fully in the realm of speculation. Maybe it’d affect re-election, maybe not. That’s always a risk, with every bill, every vote, every compromise.

It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have compromised, though.

sounds like saving you own skin for politics. but they do not have any problem ignoring other minorities, like lots of federal workers and contractors, for *measely* 0.01% (i don’t know if that is correct) of the federal budget.

“they would face overwhelming opposition in their next election”

the majority of voters do not care about the debt

agreed. Most don’t know the difference between “debt” and “deficit”.

Not that I think it’s good that most people look at things this way.

Most don’t know the difference between “debt” and “deficit”.

As long as they can go out to dinner at Applebees or Chili’s and be home in time to catch Dancing with the Stars, as far as they know its all good.

the majority of voters do not care about the debt.

Why should they? There ain’t no stopping this train. This is the last grabbing of wealth before it blows. It’s gonna blow. It needs to blow. Now how do we want it to blow? Do you want a half-a$@ blow where the TBTF rich can engineer bailouts only for themselves while the rest of us get the shaft? Or do you want it to blow so big that everyone suffers equally and we tell them how to re-set? I’m tired of those clowns giving us the finger…Are we going to be Iceland or Ireland?

We’re gonna let these super-rich clowns cut our medicare and Soc Sec after what they just looted because of the debt and deficit?? Come on! There is plenty of money when the rich need bailouts. How bout some health-care, rising wages, jobs and promised Soc. Security for the American people? The government is there to serve 99% of the people way more than it is to serve the top 1%.

Yea man, the rich get all the breaks and we get cuts. You know what? Screw that.

ugh, dancing with the stars. I tried to get a friend to watch The Civil War on TV this week, but the first episode was at the same time as DWTS, and she wanted to watch The Civil War in order. So she’s not watching The Civil War at all, and is going to get from the library “later.”

News Flash: Nobody is going to remember DWTS. The Civil War film in 20 years old and still going strong.

tried to get a friend to watch The Civil War on TV this week, but the first episode was at the same time as DWTS, and she wanted to watch The Civil War in order. So she’s not watching The Civil War at all, and is going to get from the library “later.”

Good gah-rief!

If teevee-free Slim were invited over for a viewing of The Civil War at the same time as DWTS, I’d be there right away. And I’d bring chips and my homemade salsa too.

The Civil War film in 20 years old and still going strong.

I love it. I have it. I wonder if Ken Burns will bring it up to today like he did with his “Baseball” 10th Inning.

He could talk about how we got to the point where some people believe it “wasn’t about slavery” and stuff.

And the southern “lost cause” history re-writer’s attempt to marginalize Grant’s brilliant and superior generalship.

From publisher’s weekly on the book, U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Grant-American-America/dp/0807833177

How does national memory determine national heroes? Waugh, a UCLA history professor, probes the subject in an engaging study of the making of Ulysses S. Grant’s reputation. At the time of his death in 1885, he was perceived as on a level with George Washington by former Unionists and Confederates alike.

That image began to change as lost cause romanticism nurtured reinterpreting the Civil War as not merely tragic but arguably unnecessary. The eclipse of this approach has restored Grant’s reputation as a general.

His memoirs were a bestseller. His image combined the honorable soldier and the generous victor: a heroic war leader who believed in the ideal of national reconciliation in both regional and racial contexts. Even Grant’s flaws were part of his greatness, linking him to his countrymen in a distinctively American fashion.

Point of history: Grant finished the book while he was dying. Big part of the reason why he wrote it was to take care of his family after he was gone. Guy had already been defrauded of his estate.

His publisher? Another well-known guy named Mark Twain. He wanted to see to it that Grant was better treated than he would have been by the big publishing houses, which Twain did not trust.

I have Grant’s memoirs. The full hardcover.

There is no doubt as to the cause of the Civil War and who was wrong except to those who will always choose to be ignorant.

Point of history: Grant finished the book while he was dying.

I have Grant’s memoirs.

I went to the library in NorCal to get the book. They pulled it from the back. It was the original 2 volume first edition print. One was recovered, one had the original worn cover.

Many consider it to be one of the finest military memoirs ever written. It was written like he fought. No-nonsense, to the point and forward march.

interesting read about how grant was snookered by the same group of financial con men more than a hundred years ago. nothing has changed.

Grant: “bad for us today,…but we’ll lick ‘em tomorrow…”

“Short-term” narrow-mindedne$$…vs….”Long-term” Truthfulness

Abe & Sam…the long & short story of saving a Nation.

“grant was snookered by the same group of financial con men more than a hundred years ago”

This is what worries me about removing the safety net for elders. You save all your life and when your faculties wane, someone cons you out of it.

And being a genius in one field does not mean you are a genius in all of them. There are only a limited number of things you can really be expert in.

but by comparison to the damage that would ensue if the debt ceiling was not raised, we are in recovery

so you’re saying we’re in recovery from something that hasn’t happened yet?

That doesn’t make it a recovery. All that says is your opinion is things will be worse than now if the federal gov’t shuts down.

“That doesn’t make it a recovery.”

Agreed — see my attempted clarification below in another post.

Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t.

It was meant more as an implicit comparison to what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised, rather than an objective statement about the quality of the (tepid, government-engineered) recovery underway.

Busy today so cannot find you the best of articles but this article states that it takes moving three tons of earth just to make one wedding ring: http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/gold_mining_output_2008_china_south_africa_020620082.

Of course, you need to create roads and other infrastructure before you can even begin mining and after mining you have to move a lot of earth during the reclamation process. It all means lots of energy. It is one of the reasons that oil shale is always just short of being economically feasible. The higher oil prices go, the more costly it is to produce since it has such high energy inputs.

I’m with A-dan here and will echo Chris Martensen in that we’ve already “high-graded” everything. We are producing gold from ore bodies with sub-ppm Au. Why? Because we like the challenge and like driving big trucks (although they ARE fun to watch!) and like creating enormous holes in the ground. No. We do it because we MUST.

Agreed on oil shale too. It’s all about EROEI. And it’s dropping every single day.

BTW A-Dan — I looked up Throrium energy last week finally (from our conversation a while back). I don’t claim to understand everything, but at a cursory glace, I appreciate many of the features. It still seems a costly and overly-intricate way to boil water, but it seems better than the alternatives (except solar thermal, wind with molten salt and massive conservation!)

MrBubble

The reason such costly means to produce gold are currently being exploited is precisely due to the gold price bubble.

All that (costly) gold supply response to try to cash in on the currently high price is going to backfire just like any other resource extraction frenzy in history has: Just when it seems like the price of gold will never stop going up, the gold bubble will suddenly be drowned in a deluge of supply.

(If this doesn’t quite seem plausible, just think back to how they were building houses like crazy circa 2006, and what a huge glut of houses are out there today, thanks in part to the overbuilt stock crashing prices…)

Oops — that was a serious misfire. I meant to put in this quote from Albuquerquedan’s post:

“Energy prices are going up (peak oil) and you have to move a lot of earth to produce an Oz of gold.”

Sorry — my hand slipped.

Better link on gold production costs:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Understanding-Costs-That-Go-Into-Gold-Mining&id=2128471

Couldn’t it be as simple as production costs going up, demand by central banks going up, demand by individuals going up (although I’m the only one of my circle who owns physical (or is stupid enough to talk about it)), purchasing power of the dollar decreasing? Maybe to speculation, too, sure. This is not my area of expertise, so rebukes are not welcome.

I get enough of that here in the salt mine.

MrBubble

purchasing power of the dollar decreasing?

One can easily figure out how big a factor this is - look at POG in other currencies.

I’ll remain a skeptic. I believe the transactions but the nattering is BS.

Carrie Ann is a troll.

???????

Yeah I’m a troll. That’s it. Gheesh. Ya think I’ve got nothing better to do? I’m not in the business. And no one is in my family. I want prices to come down. And exeter, I’ve told you before, you apply what you see in your area to the whole state. C’mon out honey. Let’s do lunch and I’ll show ya ’round. Perhaps for much of the state you can generalize. But I’m just telling you what’s going on in my little town.

Why don’t you come up w/a concrete response to the fact there is nothing to rent in this school district? And that effects pricing.

That is a serious component I noticed no one wants to recognize every time I mention it. Well whether you want to laugh it off or not doesn’t change facts.

effects s/b affects

Oh and one more way to tell Carrie Ann is not a troll: When the dam does break you will hear me reporting it.

Relax CA. I questioned the troll comment. I don’t believe you’re a troll. I express my doubts about the sentiment you hear, not you.

Regarding this idea that there is nothing to rent in your town; So what if vacancies are down in Frogballs, NY? It’s meaningless irrespective of the dopes who natter away about it.

Um, I can’t believe CarrieAnn was just called a troll.

We know you’re not a troll, CarrieAnn!

BTW, thanks for the input from your neighborhood. I do believe that the market is “local” in the sense that the more desirable neighborhoods are not seeing the declines (yet), and have been seeing higher rents as inventory is most certainly constrained.

We’ve been to a few open houses in Escondido, and if they’re priced right, there has been a LOT of traffic — like you can’t move from room to room without having to stand against a wall to let others pass.

OTOH, if something isn’t priced right…no traffic.

It is ALL about the price.

“mortgages last longer than marriages”

Interesting saying. My parents have been married long enough to have paid off 2 mortgages. Not that they had 2. They have been mortgage free since 1986.

I don’t know. They aren’t borrowing from the 401K, they’re cashing it out. Wouldn’t you agree to give up that protection when you cash it out?

Wouldn’t you agree to give up that protection when you cash it out?

ikd. I don’t have a 401K because I’ve been self-employed and owned a business. I have IRA’s. With an IRA I think the house would remain an IRA asset just like a stock or mutual fund, thus would be provided the same legal protection.

Anyone?

ikd =IDK above

There is no such thing as a self directed 401(k). In addition, they aren’t talking about the retirement account owning the asset. They are talking about cashing out the money - paying taxes and penalties along the way - and using the money to pay for the house.

There is no such thing as a self directed 401(k).

This is quite false. I had one at my last employer, through Charles Schwab.

You see, by appearance I’m “in the club” but my studies of history and even my own family’s experiences (particularly my dad’s in WWII) make me doubt that.

I’m with you on that one.

Reason: I have one of those Cornish last names that Americans find hard to pronounce. It’s one of those names that, in various times in our nation’s history, was considered “ethnic.” As in, gasp, my ancestors were assumed to be from southeastern Europe. And that wasn’t considered to be a good thing.

I’ve been misunderstood had my comments twisted & distorted enough already on this blog.

Yeah, well guess what Rio, that is what they get paid fer no accident.

“And if you suspect that this may have affected my “worldview”, you would be correct.”

And what, you hate Black people now?

Cry me a damn river…..what kind of world view do you think people of color develop after encountering hundreds if not thousands of racist White people in their lifetimes?

Maybe some of the people YOU encountered were just getting some payback.

Black people can be just as full of $hit as white people. Or Hispanics. Or anyone else.

Color doesn’t matter, it the culture you were raised in that matters.

And “payback” against a 10 year old kid you don’t know is okay with you?

In this day and age the racism one might encounter as a black or hispanic or asian is probably no worse than an ugly or fat person would encounter.

There are countless successful minorities, ugly people, and fat people. I could throw in old people, women, people from working class backgrounds, etc.. The list of possible “minorities” is very long.

If you’re not successful you might blame it on the color of your skin. But I think it’s a worthless exercise and inaccurate to boot. You might have to work a little harder but IMHO not any harder than a less physically attractive white person.

Discrimination occurs in all types and forms. Deal with it, and move on. Nobody is going to hire or keep on a crybaby regardless of skin color.

“Color doesn’t matter, it the culture you were raised in that matters.”

Why is it White people are always saying this bs? I have yet to hear a person of color say this “color doesn’t matter” nonsense. But yet again, White people are the ones who made skin color an issue in the first place, SO now if you guys say skin color isn’t an issue it must be true….

“And “payback” against a 10 year old kid you don’t know is okay with you?”

Tell that to 13 year old Emitt Till (lynched), or those little Black and Latino kids outside of Philly who were told to get out of the pool because of the color of their skin, little Black and Latino kids outside followed around in stores, little Black and Latino kids outside harrassed by the police, ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC. Racist White people HAVE and CONTINUE to tramatize the lives of young children of color, so why should I feel sorry for you?????????????

“In this day and age the racism one might encounter as a black or hispanic or asian is probably no worse than an ugly or fat person would encounter.”

The arrogance of certain White people astounds me. How would YOU know the level of racism that a person of color encounters? How would YOU know how it affects an individual person of color? Have you taken a tally of the opinions of the 100 million plus people of color who live in this country and their feelings? Or is YOUR opinion of the situation, more important than MY ACTUAL EXPERIENCES. And yet, White love to claim that there is no such thing as “White privilige”…..smh

mk and xg. this *fight* sounds likes the palestinians and the jews.

Is there any vacant land left in Mission Valley that isn’t in a flood plain?

“Is there any vacant land left in Mission Valley that isn’t in a flood plain?”

Was there EVER any land in Mission Valley that isn’t in a flood plain? I thought Mission Valley was in a flood plain (actually more of a high-walled canyon) by definition…

“Was there EVER any land in Mission Valley that isn’t in a flood plain?”

Exactly. Who would buy a house there?

Oh wait, this is San Diego.

Never mind.

“Who would buy a house there?”

Looking on the bright side, perhaps those who live in Mission Valley are relatively less likely to have their homes burn down in a wild fire.

Reckon depends on how good the non-vegetarians “Evangelicals” are at wrasslin’ with the religious “Evangelicals”…x1 “Crusade” at a time…saps their political “vital energy”, not to mention the stress on their donations finances.

that’s pretty funny— good response!

Just looked it up, and it’s exactly what I said. When somebody says “war” to me, I think of The Civil War, or World War I and World War II. Kill the bodies instead of winning hearts and minds. And I do think the US could do it in days.

she probably meant she forgot to save the fudges.

Yeah, they discover new individual rights too, like the right to health care,

If health care cost the same today adjusted for inflation as it did in 1965 I would say you have a stronger point but it dosen’t and you don’t.

Why would Americans not have a “right” to health-care when 1/3 of our entire population can’t afford our system of healthcare and NEVER will be able to?

(50 million no insurance, 50 million B.S. insurance and how many million afraid to tell their Dr. they are sick? How many not going because they can’t afford it?)

We don’t have the right not to be gouged? We sure have the right not to be gouged by gas stations during emergencies don’t we? I mean those that gouge the price of gas go to jail… Why? because we have the right to fair dealings.

We do not have that right in our dealings with healthcare and we deserve that right.

100,000 a day took to the streets for weeks and it’s done nothing. It’s going to take something more.

Just look back at the movements to achieve notable social changes in our society. I’m thinking of things like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and, more recently, gay rights. None of these changes were achieved in a few months. Rather, they took decades.

candy ass little twerp = wmbz vernacular for: “lil’ Phil”

That candy ass little twerp would pee his pants if someone/anyone yelled boo in his face.

If what he says is true……it looks like he didn’t doesn’t it?

I know PP doesn’t get federal money for Abortions, but I would rather give women the right to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, then to support an unappreciated child for 18 + yrs. For me, it comes down to the lesser of the two evils. I am not fond of the lesser of the two evil concept, but it kind of applies here.
Disclosure: I’ve had an Abortion. It is not an easy decision, and it is between the woman and her maker. In retrospect, it was the right decision at the time.

Or worse, Elanor, insurance paying for ED drugs but not paying for birth control. A man is not allowed to say “no” because that’s bad for his mental health, while a woman is not allowed to say “yes” because that’s immoral.

PP already does not use federal funds to pay for abortions. PP provides treatment for STDs to men as well as women (more drugs! Hey Big Pharma!) and they even provide vasectomies.

And money is fungible, so that really is just an accounting trick.

I think it’s a silly issue overall (personally i don’t think the gov’t should be handing out money to any of these orgs, nor taking in the taxes it does to even have money to choose to redistribute), but let’s be honest….the fact that they get federal funds to pay for std treatments, etc, simply frees them to have more funds (via donations) for other things (including abortions).

(i’m pro-choice, as well, before someone decides to attack me on that front)

Well we can expect to see STD rates rise. This will of course trickle up (no pun intended) to everyone in the country.

As they say

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I once had someone on this very board argue that prevention was more expensive.

I knew right then it was going to be a long Not a Depression Recession.

Wait until one of the for-profit American energy companies cuts one too many corners at their nuke plants. Yep, it’ll be brighter all right.

In fundy circles women are just vessels, wombs, nothing else but propagating the male’s DNA. So, it’s all about power & control.

Then why the debate? Just fund the non-abortio parts.

Or is the MSM purposely lying for ratings? They all say it’s about “funding abortion.”