The Housing Bubble

You’re negative and you know it… and so do we.

Wow. Eight Eldo mortgages retiring at 3K a month. Why, if the market (and the geology) remains stable you’ll be paid off in lessee, only fifty years! Nice.

No.

It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

PS- As typical, you conveniently left out 50 years of maintenance, taxes, insurance, etc.

And the reality is your parents couldn’t find a buyer for a small fraction of what they have in it. Why?????

Because houses depreciate, ALWAYS.

Off only 28%? I’m guessing that $500K is somewhat more than 3x the median income of potential buyers, and probably a doesn’t rent for $5,000 a month.

Watch out below that one….

My aunt is in her 70’s, retiring, and putting a “little” money into her east coast house to ready it for sale: New roof. All new curtain drains around the house due to massive flooding problems causing basement foundation degradation (think heavy equipment). Remediation of said foundation problems. Massive plumbing repair, requiring the demolition of walls and ceilings. Replacement of rotting walls and flooring in the bathrooms. Rebuilding of the chimney. She’s not done. So far, the tab is well over $100k. She has put more money in the house than she ever paid for it thirty years ago.

But most people are too brainwashed to do the math.

“But most people are too brainwashed to do the math.”

Unfortunately, I think that this needs to be fixed:

“But most people are too stupid to do the math.”

Damn you beat me to it Overtaxed!

And the reality is your parents couldn’t find a buyer for a small fraction of what they have in it. Why?????

My parents are deceased and sold the house decades go.

But how much maintenance could have gone into that house? 480k? Not even close.

Taxes? With prop 13, they would have been very low. If they were still living in that house, property tax would be about $700 per year today.

And if houses really depreciated as you claim, I should be able to snap up that house in Orange county for 20K, or less, right?

Saying that houses always depreciate is just as bogus as saying they always appreciate.

Also, our old house in Escondido sold for 330K last year. We sold it for 150K in 1995. So even with the bubble bursting (it was valued at 500K at the peak of the bubble), someone turned a nice profit on the sale.

It’s not bogus… it’s reality. ALL manmade items depreciate. Unless you’ve suspended natural law.

I’m guessing that $500K is somewhat more than 3x the median income of potential buyers, and probably a doesn’t rent for $5,000 a month.

LOL. Flyover country or sand states may be seeing properties priced at 100x rents, but coastal properties are no where near that. You’ll be lucky to find decent properties at 120x rents in eastern MA.

Land value in eastern MA is sick. Get within 128 (within 20 miles of Boston) and it get’s sicker. Take a look at rents and prices in Cambridge, Brighton, Allston, etc. I blame the Higher Education bubble, but before that it was the Real Estate bubble, and before that it was the Tech bubble. As far as I’m concerned, prices have been out of whack since ‘99. 13 years and counting…

NE’er,

Inside Rt128 was sheer madness back in 1998-1999 when I was working in Beantown and staying in Waltham.

Depreciation is corp welfare. It doesn’t apply to residential property.

@Darrell in Phoenix:

I appreciate the phrase “the median income of potential buyers” in your post.

Grizzly, with all the moolah your aunt is putting into her house, she ought to stay and enjoy it. It’s far too late to sell it as a tear-down, and she would be very lucky to get back what she has spent if she sells.

ALL manmade items depreciate. Unless you’ve suspended natural law.

absolutely true. homes, buildings etc. (as you said “anything man made), are all depreciating assets that have their peak absolute value at the moment they’re completed. from there, they continue down in value until the asset turns into a liability, and then is destroyed. the process is always the same, no matter how long it takes.

Inside Rt128 was sheer madness back in 1998-1999 when I was working in Beantown and staying in Waltham.

Sounds like the perfect time to buy near Boston was the 1993-1995 time-frame… a few years after the previous real estate bust but before the tech bubble took off.

homes, buildings etc. (as you said “anything man made), are all depreciating assets that have their peak absolute value at the moment they’re completed. from there, they continue down in value until the asset turns into a liability, and then is destroyed.

Precisely. And all of it ends up back in the ground, right where it came from.

The $20million facility I’m building today will be worn out in 50 years and they’ll pay a guy like me to build another one.

That’s life.

I am surprised the French haven’t torn down the Eiffel Toqer yet, that things gotta be 150 years old by now.

I didn’t know that there were 130 million Eiffel Towers in France. Interesting.

How much do you think they’ve paid to keep just one of those rotting towers standing over 150 years now?

Does a painting by Picasso depreciate?

How many paintings are there on the planet? So long as you get to cherrypick, I cherrypick my neighbors velvet Elvis photo.

He paid $250 for it and I saw the same velvet Elvis in the $1 rack at the Goodwill.

Does the majority of paintings depreciate?

Yes. Just like ALL manmade items.

“Does a painting by Picasso depreciate?”

It does if the roof leaks and mold and mildew grow all over it.

Does the majority of paintings depreciate?

Yes. Just like ALL manmade items.

But the ‘majority’ isn’t ‘all’.

What about antiques? Or baseball cards? Or comic books?

‘Does a painting by Picasso depreciate’

I’ve done some thinking on this sort of thing over the years. Members of my family are big antique buyers/swappers, etc. After watching them dabble in this stuff for years, I noticed none of them were making any money at it. I also saw that a roof (probably an insured roof, with property taxes attached) had to be over the antiques at all times, and climate controlled. They had to be periodically cleaned, moved, stored, what have you. I came to the conclusion that for most antiques, the cost of this stuff over decades on longer almost surely totaled more than the antique is worth. Sure, there are rare chairs that cost a half a million, but those type things are so small in number it doesn’t matter much IMO.

And the opportunity costs! Don’t forget those.

But BTW, I will point this out; if a Picaso came into the sudden possession of any given person on the planet, I think the vast majority would sell it as fast as they could schedule an auction.

‘Does a painting by Picasso depreciate’

Why not experiment by hanging a Picasso on the wall of a vacant, unmaintained home and see what kind of shape it is in a couple of months later?

Hmmm … I have antiques - sleep on one, store clothes in thers, another holds up the TV. There’s one called a DR table but most often it is a repository for mail and such.

Some of them come with memories of grandparents or a great aunt attached - those are the best ones.

Put the Picasso right next to Velvet Elvis….. I’ll wager on Velvet Elvis.

Don’t get me wrong. I like antiques too. But my theory is the cost of storing/protecting them over the life of the thing probably exceeds what most items would fetch on the market.

Like a 40 year old car. How much would it cost to store it in good condition, for 40 years? You can’t really drive it for 40 years, so it has to sit somewhere.

Antiques…My late aunt and uncle collected antiques and junk. When they passed away I was the successor trustee charged with liquidating the estate. I did not know antique from junk. I will just say in short I sold it all and at what both the neighboring households asked.

I learned my lesson to buy bullion coins and stash them. They can be immediately appraised. So my charities will easily liquidate my assets after I am gone and get top dollar.

Like a 40 year old car. How much would it cost to store it in good condition, for 40 years? You can’t really drive it for 40 years, so it has to sit somewhere.

Yup, and people love to point to the ones (after all those years of storage) that can be sold for more than they originally cost as great investments, even though 99% of them still can’t be sold for enough to buy a new equivalent car. But like all other kinds of gambling addicts, the handful of exceptions inspires them all to keep trying…

Agree regarding the land component to housing.

I also find it interesting that, if I remember correctly of the ~130 million housing units in the US, economists estimate that the construction of only approximately 400,000 per year are necessary to replace obsolete/condemned structures. That means that far and away the most common practice with respect to an existing structure is to repair it, rather than replace it.

In 2009, the median year built for the 130 million housing units in the US was 1974. In other words, half of all housing units were more than 35 years old, and in fact, approximately 40 million housing units were built more than 50 years ago at that time (this is from the American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009).

If you believe in people making the logical decisions with respect to their own costs of shelter, while the physical structures deteriorate with time, their utility by and large does not fall to zero. This also means that at least parts of each structure retain utility and value and thus are also subject to inflation.

Said another way, if every housing unit in the US became worthless after 50 years, at a steady state, we would be building in excess of 2 million units per year just to keep up with the replacement of obsolete structures.

We all know this is not the case.

Again, I agree, it’s too simple to say that properties depreciate to zero. The reality is that physical structures generally become worth less over time and require maintenance, but typically not worthless over most periods of ownership.

The question is whether the cost of maintenance/reduction in utility that cannot be maintained over time exceeds the rate of inflation over that same period of time.

property values in a “growing” country tend to increase over time.

Not really. Not at all in fact. In the absence of monetary inflation, real property prices are static.

And as far as land goes, its’ value is only as much as the materials that can be grown on it or mined from it.

There is a globe full of unused land and most of it has very little value.

“There is a globe full of unused land and most of it has very little value.”

We saw a butt-ugly swath of it driving home from vacation yesterday between Primm, NV to Barstow, CA. The loveliest sight en route was a scraggly Joshua Tree forest. Happily, there are no McMansion tract home developments out in the middle of the Mojave desert.

The fed can loosening lending so that banks can make more loans to qualified borrowers that come in looking to take out loans.

The fed can not create more qualified borrowers, nor can it make the limited supply of qualified borrowers rush into a bank to take out loans.

The same people that got foreclosed on and did short sales will be back buying with govt loans here real soon.

People need equity to buy GM cars.

YES they can Darrell…..

All you have to do is loan money to people that had great FICO scores for years or decades before the crash….

Of course it would require those previously very responsible people to have JOBS if you want them to pay it back….uh oh

Increasing inflation expectations could easily backfire now. If I know the price of food and fuel are going up and my wages aren’t, I’m not going to buy a car or t.v. I’m saving my money to heat my house and feed my family.

If I really believed the Fed would go all out, I’d buy gold, canned food, ammo and the like for barter.

1964 to today is 576 months of rent that they would have otherwise paid. Funny how this part of the equation is always forgotten.

Why does how many “months of rent” matter whatsoever in the rent-versus-own equation, mister Frankenstein strawman caricaturist RealLiar®? Isn’t the relevant question that of how much you could have saved by renting a comparable property compared to throwing away a fortune on a depreciating black hole of a real estate investment?

Funny how this part of the equation is always forgotten.

Similar to your tendency to conveniently exclude 50 years of interest, taxes, insurance and replacement roofs, windows, asphalt driveways, fencing, out code electric, worn out boilers/furnaces/AC/fixtures, worn out flooring and carpet, etc etc etc.

Why is that?

Seems like housing is the economy these days.

But the reality is housing demand is at 15 year lows and falling. Housing prices are falling. Housing supply is massive.

Anything else I can correct for you?

keep renting in your moms basement buddy.

Liar,

If it’s not a lie, it’s an personal attack and a lie.

Why is that?

you are full of BS. You are the one attacking me. Keep up your doom and gloom and miss out like you did last time around.

No. It’s reality my lying friend. You’re lying to the public about housing. why?

-Housing Demand is at 15 year lows…. and falling.

-Housing prices are falling

-Housing supply is massive

Miss out on paying a grossly inflated price for a rapidly depreciating asset? Really?

Don’t miss out on that one folks!!! lmao.

RAL I am not attacking you but have a comment directed your way. I concede most of your points, except that with good and lucky timing, appreciation/ROI can be gleaned from houses. Are you are taking a completely innocuous comment from AZdude, and blowing it up to fit your agenda?

Houses appreciate sometimes. How could I have paid 270k for house in 1995, extracted rent payments for a decade from student quality tenants, deferred lots of maintainance, then sold it for 860k? It apppreciated for me and I “rang the register”. Sure it depreciated for the next buyer who did all the deferred work and then sold it for the same 860k. Do you dispute this?

I also bought a couple houses in 2005 one for $150k and another for $200k. Sold them for $287k and $350k, respectively. Following that I bought more houses and lost my ass bigtime. A house in Utah I paid $400k for and sold it for $288k. Even had a tenant that stole from me by not paying rent and jacking some of my belongings and failing to maintain the place as promised. Even losing over 100k one year does not negate the fact that I made 200k another year. So it goes both ways, much like the stock market, albeit with more variables, that often work against the homeowner, regardless of what you say. I am not a lying realtor, either, I am a teacher. No clue what AZ does.

Yes, housing is almost certainly to be depreciating right now, but ALWAYS?? I have been taking rent payments (from a realtor,egad. Should I plan on her not paying rent cuz she told me she would pay?) My house will continue to give me a return of more than I could get anywhere else right now.

Housing is the whole economy to me because that is where I am finding ROI, and that is about the only area investors seem to make a return, albeit short sighted, as cashing out is a problem as are taxes and maintaining it, for going on three years. I am also appreciative of what you say, so if and when I have to sell at a loss you can tell me “Told you so”

I appreciate your cautionary words. And, RALs! Likely to be worth less later, but that does not mean it did not appreciate during its life before it begins again plunging in value.

“seems like housing is the whole economy”, could mean many things, most likely, azdude is saying that housing is getting a lion’s share of attention by the media and around the water cooler. And it is beating other investments for return. Be it ugly ugly return as landlording is not fun as a rule.

AZ wasn’t event saying that housing is going up or down. Where did you get a liar’s claim out of that?

Now now, you’ll hurt dude’s feelings with all those facts. Can’t you let him have his dream?

RAL, what the heck has gotten into you? You seem to attack anyone who doesn’t subscribe 110% to your views these days. Lighten up, for pete’s sake.

Look….

The fact that all man made items depreciate isn’t my “view”. It is reality. It is fact. It is natural law. I’m indifferent to fact or natural law but when I hear people flat out LIE about this, I’m not indifferent.

I think the word you are looking for is deteriorate, not depreciate. Depreciate has a very specific financial meaning that may not be true of all man made assets at all time. Deterioration is something else altogether. Pretty much anything other than a lump of gold is going to deteriorate over time.

The fact that all man made items depreciate isn’t my “view”. It is reality.

It might be reality but does it matter in the context of our limited lifespans?

The house I live in can last 200 years. I won’t. So in the next 30 years (god willing) how much will my house have depreciated being 30 years old with 170 more years of utility left, having saved me rent for 30 years and me being dead?

“In the long run, we’re all dead.”

(Just trying to cheer you all up today!)

“Pretty much anything other than a lump of gold is going to deteriorate over time.”

Correct.

Okay, I gotta jump in here. “All manmade items” do NOT depreciate. Take a look at “Antiques Roadshow” sometime, then think about the value of say, Wright’s “Hollyhock House” or anything designed by I. M. Pei, Nutria et al.

Notable houses in desirable locations tend to mirror the exclusivity of their locale, and many of those take a century or more to “depreciate”– if not longer. For example:

Any first tier university town
Colonial Williamsburg
Pebble Beach
Washington DC

Case in point:
Classic “modern” open plan tract-type home in Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, built in 1968 for 155K. We bought in 1985 for 614K, was sold in 2010 for 3.2M. Minimal upkeep other than landscaping and routine plumbing. Currently listed for 4.15M. That’s pretty typical of the neighborhood and those of the Hollywood Hills 80 miles to the north. Homes built there in earlier decades demonstrate a similar appreciation curve — even through the slumps.

I fully expect the house I’m in now to last (with minimal maintenance) for at least another hundred years. That’s all the second law of thermodynamics I’m likely to need in my lifetime….

Sorry Alena but you are incorrect.

I can select a 1963 Corvette split window coupe and say “look! cars don’t depreciate. They go up in value!”. Yet it is one very minute group of vehicles out of the hundreds of millions of cars built since then. Shooting from the hip here but the 1963 vettes represent <0.0001% of all cars.

And where did those hundreds of millions of cars go? That’s right. In the ground… right where they came from. Why? Because they depreciate to nothing. Like ALL manmade items.

“All manmade items” do NOT depreciate. Take a look at “Antiques Roadshow” sometime, then think about the value of say, Wright’s “Hollyhock House” or anything designed by I. M. Pei, Nutria et al.

collector value may go up, but it’s absolute value doesn’t. even wine that appreciates in value for many years will eventually turn into vinegar. collector value returns to absolute value sooner or later.

the value of a house in roman times is the same as the value of a house now.

sure you can get price variations due to many different factors, but its core value is the same as any other table, chair or house that depreciates through time.

I think there is too much focus on the house and too little on the land. The difference between the million dollar house near the coast of California and the 150 thousand dollar house in a flyaway country is not the house but the value of the land under it. The land does not deteriorate unless you are too close to the coast. Plywood does not appreciate in value but the value of the opportunity to live somewhere can appreciate or depreciate. Detroit on one end and land on the coast of So. Cal or in Silicon Valley on the other hand.

“The govt will do all it can to get house prices rising.”

Without an equal rise in median incomes, we have a disconnect, cash out now or be priced in forever.

“The fact that all man made items depreciate isn’t my “view”. It is reality. It is fact. It is natural law. I’m indifferent to fact or natural law but when I hear people flat out LIE about this, I’m not indifferent.”

Who’s lied about it? No one has ever denied that properties decay, or that maintenance to slow the decay costs money. Why do you argue against things that people are not saying?

The problem is semantic. He is using a specific financial term to describe a physical process. I don’t understand the vehemence when simply accepting that people don’t buy just the deteriorating structure would get rid of the whole conflict. And being a builder isn’t enough to explain it.

Why do you argue against things that people are not saying?

Let’s start here:

“All manmade items” do NOT depreciate.”

… and here.

“Saying that houses always depreciate is just as bogus as saying they always appreciate.”

… and here.

“The idea that house prices always go down is as foolish as prices always go up.”

The first quote that got this started:

““The idea that house prices always go down is as foolish as prices always go up.””

Prices. Not depreciation. Not decay. Prices.

When you’re done cherrypicking, please address the issue.

Yours Truly,

The issue is that Jojo said:

“The idea that house prices always go down is as foolish as prices always go up.”

and you responded:

“Houses depreciate. Get over it liars.”

Your statement doesn’t refute what Jojo says, but it does imply that you believe that depreciation means prices.

In Colo provides an example of prices going up, to which you respond:

“It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

This implyies that you consider depreciation to be physical decay. Physical decay and price movement while related are not the same thing, and the events can be seperated over a considerable amount of time. While decay will ultimately mean that price of a manufactured good will go to zero or close to it, it doesn’t mean that the price constantly drop from the moment of construction. There are numerous examples to prove this. Personally, I’d buy the Mona Lisa for a few buck if I had the chance even if it will be worth 0 eventually.

Jojo’s initial statement is accurate.

Nice try but issue isn’t “what jojo said” (irrespective of the fact that its false.

The “issue” is YOU stated, Why do you argue against things that people are not saying? This is another misrepresentation as Alena responded;

All manmade items” do NOT depreciate.

Alena is mistaken but she isn’t misrepresenting my words.

All things depreciate eh?

MSRP of this ‘69 Camaro was $4200.

For sale today, 43 years later for $65,000

http://www.carsforsale.com/used_cars_for_sale/1969_Chevrolet_Camaro_152049758_11

I think we need to be clearer when we use terminology. RAL is saying (and I completely agree) that a house (the thing with 4 walls and a roof) is a depreciating asset. After-all a 1500sq/ft house built today using today’s technology is going to be worth more than a 1500sq/ft house of the same quality built in the 1960’s.

What makes the house+land sell for more in a year or too is not appreciation of the house, but appreciation of the land sufficient to compensate for the depreciation of the house. Further compounding the depreciation of the house is the fact that technology has continually made houses more efficient and cheaper to build (which RAL seems to know something about) which puts more downward pressure on the house built a couple years ago.

All of that said I don’t see the problem with people who think that they can rent out a house (or by it to live in) to generate a positive ROI, but that positive ROI doesn’t mean the house (and perhaps house+land) has not depreciated. Just like buying a stock for $10 and selling it for $8 doesn’t not preclude a positive ROI if there were sufficient dividends over time.

The risks to ROI however are present in the form of potential downward rent pressure, or property tax increases.

There are some items like lumber and labor that appreciate in nominal terms because of national fiscal policy (inflation).

Lumber in the older homes is of better quality - it may have come from a virgin forest. Craftsmanship of the older woodwork is rare and expensive today.

That said - you do have to maintain the houses. Left on their own they will depreciate.

Slithers….. do keep up huh?

Lumber in the older homes is of better quality - it may have come from a virgin forest. Craftsmanship of the older woodwork is rare and expensive today.

And you base this urban legend on what? Those sway back hand-hewn beams are “better quality” that the straight as an arrow wide flange W10 steel beam? You’re kidding yourself.

Look…. these old houses are fire traps. They’re balloon framed, with sagging load paths founded on <1500PSI concrete walls at best and most of the time on field stone foundation walls glued together with 60-100 year old spalling mortar.

“Houses appreciate sometimes. How could I have paid 270k for house in 1995, extracted rent payments for a decade from student quality tenants, deferred lots of maintainance, then sold it for 860k?”

In short, you had the luck of timing with respect to the greatest real estate mania in the history of modern finance. Lightning typically doesn’t strike twice, though everyone who wishes to gamble is entitled to bet on its near-term recurrence.

But the ’sometimes’ in your statement is a wishful canard of a strawman, as the runup from 1995-2005 was a once-in-a-generation mania which most likely is not soon to repeat.

“I think the word you are looking for is deteriorate, not depreciate.”

Deterioration = physical depreciation. The implication is you either shell out beau-ceau buckaroos on home maintenance, or else see an even greater loss of value. During the mania, people forgot about how much of their hard-earned income, not to mention their free time, went into offsetting the force of entropy that drives physical depreciation. As the housing bubble stages of grief move on from denial to acceptance, you can safely assume the masses will realize that home maintenance costs are more wisely assumed by your investor-landlord than by yourself, as maintenance alone can be worth a significant percentage of rent.

Oh for heaven’s sake. It’s okay for RAL to parse and make sweeping generalizations, but not for the rest of us? I was reacting to his parsed generalization in the first place.

Of course everything deteriorates eventually. And I was careful to define the parameter of “in my lifetime” in my statement. But given those parameters, ALL man made objects, including housing, do NOT depreciate. MOST housing does, but SOME man made objects, including architecturally significant homes (and I gave specific examples) have not.

Just as MOST realtors seem to be liars. (As is most everyone for that matter) but some realtors do not. So let’s be consistent in our semantic demands, okay? What are we? A bunch of epidemiologists here? Sheesh, lighten up. Personally, I appreciate the information jingle and rental share with us. Try to take it in context.

All things depreciate eh?

http://www.carsforsale.com/used_cars_for_sale/1969_Chevrolet_Camaro_152049758_11

And this one in a million pristine example of the upper end of the line back then is barely worth more than a new equivalent even after all those years of storage and care.

They gave it to Zuck. He just refinanced, at 1.05%, so he could do other, more profitable things with his money. At least he is not throwing $$ away on rent!

“I think they’re giving it to the wrong people. I sure haven’t seen any of this alleged free money.”

Your demographic does not qualify for Social Justice. Also, you are probably not irresponsible enough to meet current free money guidelines.

Really? Your hard-earned dollars are competing directly against the “free” money (food stamps, UE, disability, etc) when you go to the grocery store. Why do you think food prices have risen so far so fast?

“lack of income” = “excess of economic gravity”

About 9.5% per year based on your price of milk example… how does that match with “official” inflation stats?

About 9.5% per year based on your price of milk example… how does that match with “official” inflation stats?

Milk has increased about 4% higher than the official rate the past 2 years in Brazil. Granted it’s just milk. I’m not able to determine yet if the official Brazilian rate of inflation is bogus. I’d tend to believe it is more accurate than USA’s inflation rate as Brazilians have a great fearful respect of inflation as it has made their lives miserable in recent history.

As in spend your cash today and not tomorrow.

Sorry, I meant geothermal. I had oil field on my mind when I wrote this. But I believe the comparison has merit.

“I believe the comparison has merit.”

As do I.

Apart from the public outcry, transmission is the issue. Yellowstone is about as far as you could get from a major urban center.

Cap old faithful now!

Drill Yellowstone for geothermal power and use the precious water of the West cracking long-chain hydrocarbons so that we don’t have to stop and think what our over-consumption, lack of ingenuity, lack of foresight, cornucopia of crack-pot ideas, bad science and unwillingness to change our behaviors is really doing to us?

H3LL YES! America… *&%^, yeah!

Drill baby drill
Spill baby spill
Kill baby kill

But to the man with just a hammer, I suppose…

Palmetto,

Clean energy is a laudable goal, but with so much petroleum available, it will “not” be economically feasible for years.

Putting government in charge of anything will ensure that it is inefficient and prone to political mischief. Solyndra is a fine example.

Did they get megabucks from Uncle Sam because they had such a fine product (but no market)?

Or did they get the megabucks because the management promised to funnel back some of those proceeds back as political contributions?

Doesn’t it make you wonder???

Germany now generates 50% of its energy from renewables, mostly solar, and mostly from panels on people’s own home.

If we only had as much annual sunshine as Germany!

“Solyndra is a fine example.”

No, it’s not. Solyndra was government subsidized, not government run. There’s a difference.

And, SHOCKER, sometimes government does things right. How do you like those roads you’re driving on?

Turkey lurkey, I told you yesterday your numbers are completely wrong. Germany has a goal to produce 50% of its energy by 2050. Right now they produce 20% but only by including the burning of biomass. You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts.

BTW, this from wikepedia: The German solar PV industry installed about 7.5 GW in 2011,[3] and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity

Quite a difference from 50% or even most of 50%.

May 31st, 2012

http://enenews.com/germany-produces-50-of-energy-from-solar-during-mid-day-hours-equivalent-to-20-nuclear-power-stations-at-full-capacity-without-any-radioactive-waste-left-over

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/german-solar-power-plants-produce-50-of-the-nations-electric-energy-on-saturday-2012-05-26

Google it. It’s a done deal.

You’re both right. Lots of people mix up the difference between energy and power. Energy is energy. This is what allows the lights to turn on or a fire to radiate heat. Power measures the flow of energy.

So, when the Germans say they ran 50% of the grid during mid-day off solar, it means that at that particular moment, 50% of the energy supplied came from solar sources. At night, that becomes 0%. Average it out for night, cloudy days, etc… and the ratio of solar/total energy supplied falls significantly, down to the 3% quoted by Albequerquedan.

I have no idea how correct either of those numbers are but all this came about because Germany set up a program to pay a higher rate for solar power than what would be paid for fossil fuel energy. This resulted in a boom of solar PV installations and stimulated a PV industry in Germany. For a few years, Germany had the most PV installations in the world.

The USA tried to implement a renewable program using a carveout and a free market to set prices for energy in that carveout. This was done on a statewide level with California having the highest carveout.

Currently, renewable energy cannot compete on price with natural gas. This is because there is no price to pay for pollution. If polluter-pay was in place, coal would be driven out of the market and nuclear might actually become viable.

Generating 50% of the grid with Solar/renewables is a phenomenal achievement even if only for a few minutes of a summer day. This is how revolutions start. Yes the overall contribution (3%) is small but when you scale it up by more solar installations and in more countries, you’re starting to look at some serious generation capabilities.

Germany is weaning itself off nuclear, unlike neighbour France which is the most dependent country on nuclear power.

If you follow the links within the links you get this:

Government-mandated support for renewables has helped Germany became a world leader in renewable energy and the country gets about 20 percent of its overall annual electricity from those sources.

Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone. It aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

I was not talking about one hour on one day, I was talking about the overall electricity production

Too bad the Germans don’t live in AZ, then we all (in AZ) could be living 100% of the sun.

BTW, I do agree that it was impressive feat. However, it could have only occurred due to a low demand at the exact time that production was at its maximum. The article does not mention cost and that is the killer with solar. Even with cost reductions made in the last few years we are still talking about more than twice the cost of other power. Thus, if Germany or anyone else wanted to scale up they would have to be willing and able to double their electric bills. Due to the large scale cutbacks that they made to the subsidies, I would say they decided not to pay that bill.

I did a little checking a found:that Germany pays 24.43 cents a kilowatt hour for solar electricity the average price for electricity in U.S. is 12.4 cents, that includes all the alternative energy production in that average. We are making progress and I think we will reach a point within my life time when it is competitive but we are not there yet. We will never cut unemployment if we saddle businesses and families with electricity at twice the price.

Simple solution

1. Tax oil and coal to pay for military and pollution etc.
2. Use money to cut payroll taxes.

Labor becomes cheaper oil and coal based power more expensive. Tax imports based on the estimated energy to make them and give tax credits to companies that manufacture in the US to offset energy use. Solar becomes more economical in comparison. Jobs are created.

In addition to the higher prices paid in Germany for energy consumption, the entire “solar” experiment was done with government subsidies which none of this “energy miracle” even considers.
They are stopping all the subsidies because is was bankrupting the damn country.
IF you offer to pay 10x what it’s worth for people to install solar panels, you can damn well bet the country will be covered with then.
But just like Solyndra and every other solar energy project, it doesn’t pencil out in the real world compared to alternative sources.

Real polluter pay would include buying waste products, at which point nuclear would not be viable either. And do we include the pollution of making solar panels and whatnot?

I read somewhere that Germany is weaning off nuclear by buying power from France, which is… nuclear.

One might argue that the nuclear industry is already in a polluter pay scenario because of increased regulation costs and performance bonds that need to be put in place before a facility can be built.

That being said, fracking has done more to offset CO2 than renewables legislation. Coal, at its peak, was responsible for 55-60% of electricity generated. Now, it is down to 34%. It is a strange world we live in.

Stress kills. This is not opinion, but medical fact.

Now ask yourself why we have the least amount of time off in all the 1st world nations and the least amount of government and business service.

That is 40% of the pollution in California is from China. Pretty amazing when you think how much was washed out by rain on the way across the Pacific ocean.

“That is 40% of the pollution in California is from China.”

I wonder what the percentage is in rural areas of the coast - north of San Francisco, for instance.

It’s pretty interesting going back east to visit and hearing the stories of the Marcellus shale/gas reserves and changes of newfound wealth by some of these hilljacks whose family’s land dwindled from thousands of acres down to a small parcel of land where there is now an opportunity to gain wealth that they’d never otherwise see in their life. So obviously they are all for drilling even though the ill effects are pretty pervasive and obvious, including the never-ending truck traffic. The last time I visited, the gas companies had doctors sign non-disclosures in treating patients so that they could not share their prognoses with other doctors or the public. Ah, the beauty of the free markets.

I grew up in Somis. Moorpark was not really there yet, at least it was purely a wide spot in the road. My parents invested in the first big shopping center there. Now it is like in the valley man. Things sure do change. I wonder if Indian Dunes is still there (old moto riding area) on the way to Magic Mountain on 126? Fond memories in the orchards on Balcolm, Grimes, Sand Canyon Rds
Gag me with a spoon.

You know two people. I know three. That makes five. I’m sure there are more. I doubt that the number qualifies as many when you look at it compared to the number of people who will likely need it.

NBER says that only 10% of the elderly have long term care insurance. That might be “many” people if you were trying to organize a picnic, but it is hardly a large percentage of the people who may need long term care someday.

“Judging anyone involved, on the basis of a brief anecdote, is foolish. A 73 year old man is NOT “old” by today’s standards.”

Indeed. I’ve got grandparents, aunts and uncles well into their 70s and into their 80s who live a very full life. If you didn’t see them or know their ages and just knew what they do, where they go on an average day, you’d think they were 50 something, not 70/80 something.

Which is why I have to laugh when I see people freaking out about SS retirement age being increased to 70 and crying that they’ll be too old to enjoy retirement.

Which is why I have to laugh when I see people freaking out about SS retirement age being increased to 70 and crying that they’ll be too old to enjoy retirement.

Life expectancy, United States 2010: 78.2

78.2-70= 8.2 years of projected average retirement.

Of that 8.2 years of retirement I’m just guessing half of it in good health leaving 4.1 years to enjoy retirement.

4.1 years in your 70’s to ROCK!!!!! (now get back to work)

Some who live deserve death, and many who die deserve life…

Damn Lucky Duckies!

“Life expectancy, United States 2010: 78.2″

That’s just the average life expectancy. Since everyone in the US is above average most will live well into their 90s.

Actually, if you make it to 70, you can expect to live on average to 86. Most people understimate the amount they need to save for retirement because they fail to understand that the 78.2 is the life expectacy at birth and not at the time of retirement. I think Simpson/ Bowles was advocating a one year increase to save the system. When social security system first started the life expectancy at birth and time when you could start collecting were within a year of each other so we still would be far ahead.

Check out a life expectancy calculator sometime.

Oxide: I figured you’d get that.

Friend’s mom, 75 years-old, good health, vibrant and active, traveling alone in Europe as she has every year for the past 40 years, up and had a stroke. 3 months in French hospital, back home on a stretcher with a nurse, everything now in shambles. Nobody saw this coming. She now needs 24-hour care.

if you make it to 70, you can expect to live on average to 86…Check out a life expectancy calculator sometime.

I was aware of that. But I wonder if they do not use the life expectancy at birth in the Soc Sec calculations because if they used the life expectancy at retirement it would skew the figures to not count the savings derived from the people who contributed into the system and died before they could collect Soc Sec.

“Some who live de$erve death, and many who die deserve life…”

“Leave me to wag my tail in the mud.” Lao Tzu

“All aboard … Amtrak!”

Hey, Hwy. Whereabouts are you guys now? It’s so gorgeous here I could just spit.

And there’s the rub. Even with all of their knowledge and best intentions, doctors can get it wrong. With the threat of malpractice and the memory of miraculous recoveries, they err on the side of life.

I think it is wrong to ascribe profit as their primary motivation. They are human, providing the best advice they have in uncertain situations.

“But at the time, with only a few minutes to decide, the breathing tube seemed like a good idea. Who knew right then and there that the next 2 years were going to be a living hell for him and anyone else taking care of him?”

I have an intense fear of this sort of thing. I NEVER want to be in a hospital bed on a breathing tube. EVER. Please God, no. If I cannot walk around and breathe on my own, I don’t want to live.

Griz,

If you read this, I feel the same way. When they brought me in I never expected to make it out of surgery, but they intubated me and went to work, and saved my life, and all-in-all I’m glad they did. So you just never know how it’s going to turn out.

If you haven’t already, the time to have the “living will” convo with your next-of-kin is NOW, because life has a way of going weird on you when you least expect it.

Medicare didn’t pay for it at all. Medicare is health insurance for people over 65 (there are a very few other coverages). It DOES NOT pay for general nursing home care. Never has. He had to be destitute to get nursing home care covered because he was being covered by Medicaid which is a program that is only provided to poor people. In particular, your assets have to be very,very limited to get nursing home coverage. That is because you are not insured for that care unless you have private long term care insurance. In order for the government to pick up the costs, you have to spend all your money first. Why? Because before that you have the means to take care of yourself.

There are special rules related to houses when one member of a couple is still living in the house. But the one thing that should NEVER happen is that the old person gives away their money to their kids and then get the government to pay for their nursing home care. Pay for it out of your own money. If that leaves you with no estate, so be it.

“I know my mom’s father, who suffered the last 5 years of his life, before passing at 64, from congestive heart failure, had to be technically destitute before Medicare would pay for him to go into long term care. And he did not get to a better one, sadly.”

Those evil insurance CEOs with their $100 bazzilion dollar salaries. Evil, pure evil.

Oh wait, Medicare did this? You mean govt run health care isn’t the panacea liberals make it out to be? I. AM. SHOCKED.

My turn to say your dumb Polly,

And if I want to end my miserable hopeless existence from a terminal disease i should be able to do it, And save whats left of my estate for my heirs.

Pay for it out of your own money. If that leaves you with no estate, so be it.

evil insurance CEOs

lol….When you see the word “evil” you pretty much know what’s coming next.

Oh wait, Medicare did this? You mean govt run health care isn’t the panacea liberals make it out to be?

And your point? Only liberals like their Medicare? Wrong. Repubs on it like it just as do Dems. So Medicare or Medicade did what? Give the man heart disease? Make the man sick for the last 5 years of his life? Government run health-care did that?

Do you have a valid point or just like to use the word “evil”? From what I read, Medicare paid for a long term care facility where the man died from a long term illness.

MEDICARE does not pay for long term nursing home care. It never has. Long term nursing home/assisted living care is not covered by health insurance.

And dj, don’t lie about what I said in your comment. Your comment and my quote have nothing to do with each other. You are talking about someone with an acute disease who is about to die in a short time. A “do not resuscitate” order that a hospital actually obeys should be more than enough take care of you.

This discussion is about long term assited living/nursing home care. NOT hospital stays. If you are sick enough to be in the hospital and are old, Medicare pays.

I figured I may have misspoke, but knew you would be there to set it straight. Is the ending “aid” or “are”? now i know but will likely misuse it agaid. He still had to give up almost everything to be given the long term care he needed.
I venture that not many know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. We should have an educational picnic hosted by those who can distinguish tween the two.

I also meant to say my wife’s father. Who spent it all save for the house of his girlfriend which is why all my wife inherited from him was a handgun and an old pot pipe.
At least I am straight on medicaid v medicare; noone ever spelled out the difference to me I thought they were the same beast. I learned something today on the HBB!

He didn’t “give up” everything before getting long term care. He had to pay for his own day-to-day livng expenses until he couldn’t. That is what you are supposed to do. Because Medicaid which is a program that covers POOR people is not meant to protect inheritances. Not what it is there for.

I don’t see how this country could ever have an intelligent debate about health care or health insurance, when so few know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Even when they’re using one or the other or both.

No Polly YOU are missing the point what if I don’t want to go into long term care and waste all that money?

Without transferring assets to the family…what other choice is there….Its like YOU are a Greedy old lawyer wanting to siphon off all their assets for other lawyers fees …you still never answered my question what do have against Jack Kevorkian?

This discussion is about long term assited living/nursing home care. NOT hospital stays.

That is very true, Montana. My parent’s volunteer work bumps up against this all the time. People just don’t have any idea what they are dealing with. Oddly enough, one of the biggest issues is people don’t understand that long term care for the infirm isn’t health care. It feels like health care because there are nurses and it smells funny and people are often dying, but it isn’t.

I will make one exception for my objection to being able to impoverish yorself to become eligible for Medicaid. MA, at least, allows you to pre-pay for your funeral and that does not become an asset that is considered when determining whether you are eligible. That seems reasonable as long as you aren’t picking the jewel encrusted casket that can be then downgraded and your reltives pocket the cash. Since a funeral is really still your expense, I can see that not being subject to the claw back.

I don’t see how this country could ever have an intelligent debate about health care or health insurance, when so few know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

I think you are wrong. (Just keep the government out of my mom’s Medicare)

…and they are unable to stay on-topic.

…and they are unable to stay on-topic. that doesn’t conflict with my dogma.

Long term nursing home/assisted living care is not covered by health insurance.

But why not?

Unless you have tried yourself to take care of (or pay out of pocket for) 24-hour care for a sick parent with dementia, alzheimers, stroke with brain damage, etc., then you are only speaking hypothetically and you are also very very lucky.

Experiencing this personally and watching more than a few friends go through this has made me realize that I need to get my end-of-life decisions written down and made very clear, because there is no way I want any of my family to have to deal with the insanity that is our health care system if I am so out of it that I can’t take care of myself.

No Polly YOU are missing the point what if I don’t want to go into long term care and waste all that money?

Most people do not, but how many people get this put in writing before something unexpected or catastrophic happens?

I haven’t done it yet. How many of you have?

People don’t understand that long term care for the infirm isn’t health care.

But why shouldn’t it be? Ever try to take care of someone who needs 24-hour care? While holding down a job? And taking care of your own kids?

“No Polly YOU are missing the point what if I don’t want to go into long term care and waste all that money?

Without transferring assets to the family…what other choice is there….Its like YOU are a Greedy old lawyer wanting to siphon off all their assets for other lawyers fees …you still never answered my question what do have against Jack Kevorkian?”

Then don’t go into a nursing home. Seriously. Stay at home. If a family member wants to take care of you, that is OK. If they don’t, you can hire someone to help or not as you choose. People spend their money on long term care or home health aids because they want the help. If you don’t want the help, don’t take it.

And if you don’t want to waste all that money on long term care, why do you think the government should pay for it? Are you talking about not wanting long term care at all, or just not wanting to pay for it? Because I can understand the former. I’m not going to get on board if you want the care but just don’t feel like paying for it.

I haven’t made up my mind about assisted suicide. I think there is a ton of possibility for abuse. Tons. Pressure from family being a huge risk. People doing it because they need a little help with depression is another. If you really want assisted suicide, then you can outsource it by going someplace where it is legal. Much cheaper than a few years in a nursing home.

Why isn’t it covered by health insurance? Because it isn’t health care. It is daily living care. Is a baby sick because it can’t bathe or feed itself? No. Neither is an adult. It is terrible for the adult to have to experience it, but it isn’t an accute illness.

There isn’t anywhere near enough money in the system for Medicare to pay for people to go into nursing homes. There just isn’t. And while my parents are still pretty young, I have seen a friend go through the process of taking care of a parent with dementia (recently deceased) for over 10 years. And her father is terribly sick as well. They work hard at it. But it isn’t up to the rest of the world to take that burden from her and her husband. It just isn’t.

If you have your own assets you use them to take care of yourself. That includes the additional care you need at the end. Medicare is for illness and injury, not the rest of it.

“Do you have a valid point or just like to use the word “evil”? From what I read, Medicare paid for a long term care facility where the man died from a long term illness.”

Sure did. And it only took 5 years to finally get the care. SUPER! I can’t wait for these same people to decide when I get an operation and when I don’t.

And it only took 5 years to finally get the care. SUPER!

Maybe he didn’t need it for the full 5 years. You’re just babbling your usual talking points without even knowing the whole story.

You don’t even know the whole story about universal health-care countries. Quit whining Smithers, buck-up and make enough wealth to take care of yourself no matter if the “EVIL” government socialized part of your health-care.

Dang, every country that has socialized medicine has private options. (I live in one) Bet you don’t hear that much on AM radio.

“Those evil insurance CEOs with their $100 bazzilion dollar salaries. Evil, pure evil.”

$mitherines, don’t go all Ami$H us! Next you’ll be touting the beauty of folks not collecting $ocial $ecurity, like those “evil” american citizen Amish folk$.

“that doesn’t conflict with my dogma.”

That one should know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, our existing programs, is not “dogma.”

“Sure did. And it only took 5 years to finally get the care. SUPER! I can’t wait for these same people to decide when I get an operation and when I don’t.”

Smithers, the person in Mike’s anecdote died at 64. He never had Medicare at all. All of your whining is about someone working with PRIVATE insurance.

“Smithers, the person in Mike’s anecdote died at 64. He never had Medicare at all. All of your whining is about someone working with PRIVATE insurance.”

Sit down, Smithers!

That one should know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, our existing programs, is not “dogma.”

I knew the difference Montana. Look at my post. It said Medicare OR Medicaid. I just did not push it Montana. I just did not want to be a dick and parse definitions about someone’s relative who died. Got it now?

I think you know me well enough to know I don’t have any patience for that either. See discussion of estate taxes below.

I agree with Polly’s view on what is just in our existing system.

I agree with sfrenter’s feeling that our system in health-care and long term care is not as good as the systems in other industrialized countries.

Our existing system is broken. Badly broken.

Sorry, guys. Just because something is time consuming and exhausting doesn’t turn it into health care. Just doesn’t. We might call the people home health care aids, but that isn’t what they are. They are personal maids. They help with bathing and cooking and eating and getting people dressed. They also may make sure the right pills get taken at the right time and they may call for medical help when needed. That doesn’t make what they do health care. Dealing with urine and fecal matter doesn’t either.

If we want to have a public insurance program for long term care for the elderly and disabled that have enough money to pay for it themselves, then that is a different discussion. But we don’t have it now. We have a social safety net for people who need that care and don’t have any money. That is all we have for now. And our current system can’t afford to add long term care to its responsibilities. Not by a long shot. You can’t just decide that the current system should cover a whole lot of new stuff because it is distressing for it not to. You have to figure out how to pay for it.

You can’t just decide that the current system should cover a whole lot of new stuff because it is distressing for it not to. You have to figure out how to pay for it.

I think what they’re saying is that they wish we had a more comprehensive system funded by taxes. It’s impossible to do now because America has low taxes relative to our GDP compared to countries who have these more comprehensive safety nets. Those countries who do have better safety-nets have much higher taxes on the rich and much lower wealth inequality.

While we do not agree on may things (I still can’t understand you repossess the degree idea), on deciding on ending ones own life I believe it should be up to the individual (subject to mental health/competency determination [and before someone jumps in, wanting to commit suicide doesn't always make you crazy]). Unfortunately laws preventing assisted suicide have very little to do with Doctors/Lawyers and everything to due with the religious beliefs of the electorate at large.

Thanks NYC….im in queens long island city area..

Were religious beliefs at the core of prosecuting Dr.Kevorkian?…..He could have been left alone.

And the college degree thing…..we repossess all types of things when you don’t pay or put them up for auction in BK.

So think of the degree as a farm tractor…each owe $100,000 take away the tractor he cant farm…take away the degree and….lose many job opportunities that require the degree. the farmer still knows how to farm, and the grad still has the knowledge but now there is a different twist to this.

Make it a once in a lifetime deal, and make it a big hit to your credit score, and you cant get another guv loan until you pay off the forgiven one…tough love

Its just more giveaways to the deadbeats if they can keep the degree, while i struggle to keep paying my bills on time..

“Did anyone ever give you a subsidy so that you could go into the same business as your father? No? That is what giving an estate tax exemption to a “family” farm is.”

Typical govt bureaucrat thinking….the govt is entitled to 100% of your money and they’re giving you a subsidy when they only tax 50% of it.

If the rule is that you have to pay estate tax on an estate over $1 million and peole who have that $1 million in a particular form don’t have to, then they are getting a subsidy because of the form of their property.

You can also say that the estate tax is evil for everyone and should be eliminated if you like, but until you do it, an special exemption for people who have a family farm or a family business rather than a family stock portfolio or a family savings account is a subsidy.

Typical govt bureaucrat thinking….the govt is entitled to 100% of your money

I have a fun game everybody!

Let’s count how many straw man arguments Mr. Smithers uses today.

There were 2 in that post alone but I’ve seen much better!

As the law stands today,
If estate tax on 1 mil estate = 0,
What would the estate tax be on an estate that comes in at one million and one dollars?

Is it 40% of the additional dollar, i.e the first million is tax exempt, and additional monies are taxed at 40%? Or would it be 40% of the whole estate if you go over the magic number? Of course I know the magic number can change with the times/or who is in office.

Not asking for legal advice, but Polly, you sound like you may know the answer better than many others do.

I think it is $0.15. In other words, 15 cents or 15% of the amount over $1 million. There are exceptions if you have already used up portiongs of your unified credit through gifts in your lifetime, but assuming no gifts that bring that on (over $13K per year per person and some other exceptions), you don’t pay on everything once you go over a certain amount.

The people who wrote the rules are not remotely that ignorant of human behavior.

From Wiki:

For example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means the estate would have paid a taxable rate of 19.7%.

As shown, the 2001 tax act would have repealed the estate tax for one year (2010) and would then have readjusted it in 2011 to the year 2002 exemption level with a 2001 top rate. However, on December 17, 2010, Congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Section 301 of the 2010 Act reinstates the federal estate tax. The new law sets the exemption at $5 million per person.[22] A top tax rate of 35 percent is provided for the years 2011 and 2012.[23]

This can’t be common? 5 million plus in inheritance?

Even around here where I live and work .. although it would explain a few things.

Conservatives have managed to convice a huge number of middle class and working class people who have no chance at all of having enough money for their estate to be subject to the estate tax that the “death” tax is a direct threat to them and/or their kids. I don’t have the current stats, but a long time ago a survey indicated that something like 80% of people thought their estate would be subject to tax. Now the survey was likely taken at a time when the limit was much lower ($1 million per person which means with some planning a married couple can exclude $2 million even if they don’t die together), but when was there a time when 80% of the people thought they were going to die with money and good worth $1 million?

Exactly, polly.

“Conservatives have managed to convice a huge number of middle class and working class people who have no chance at all of having enough money for their estate to be subject to the estate tax that the “death” tax is a direct threat to them and/or their kids. I don’t have the current stats, but a long time ago a survey indicated that something like 80% of people thought their estate would be subject to tax. Now the survey was likely taken at a time when the limit was much lower ($1 million per person which means with some planning a married couple can exclude $2 million even if they don’t die together), but when was there a time when 80% of the people thought they were going to die with money and good worth $1 million?”

Most people know they will never be affected by it. And still, most people understand that it is unfair to tax an estate that has already been taxed. As hard you people try, you still haven’t convinced the majority to hate successful people.

Not true. They disapprove because they think it will impact them. They are wrong.

“As hard you people try, you still haven’t convinced the majority to hate successful people.”

How much extra effort does it take for a trust fund baby to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

As hard you people try, you still haven’t convinced the majority to hate successful people.

“hate successful people” Another strawman argument by Mr. Smithers. Sure we “hate” successful people because we want to tax them. Just like cities charge us sales tax. Because they hate us. Sometimes I have to pay a toll to cross a bridge. Why? Because someone “hates” me.

Mr. Smither’s strawman/nonsensical argument count for today:

I count 8 so far. More than anyone today

“They disapprove because they think it will impact them.”

I think it’s more because it has been personalized as a family farmer problem, rather than some other kind of family business. And we sentimentalize farmers.

“I don’t have the current stats, but a long time ago a survey indicated that something like 80% of people thought their estate would be subject to tax.”

Poor slobs.

I think the Repubs looked for a few farmers that lost due to estate taxes during the last presidential election and could not find any.

Big corporations run the big farms nowadays.

thank you for the info Polly et al

In some cases, the heirs of family farms have been working the farm for years before the elder passes on.

Wouldn’t incorporating a family farm eliminate estate taxes altogether?

Incorporating it doesn’t get rid of the change in ownership. Transferring land and transferring a business that owns the land is very similar, though not identical.

Read the rest of what I wrote. Just changing the meaning of the words won’t fix it.

How are you going to pay for it?

I expect that an extra $200 a month from every worker in the country might start to cover it (long term care insurance actually counts on people dropping out before they use their benefits). Do you think you could ever pass that? No, I don’t either.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, about 60 percent of individuals over age 65 will require at least some type of long-term care services during their lifetime. More than 40 percent will need care in a nursing home for some period of time

“The costs of long-term care can be considerable: $10,000 or more a month, depending on whether the individual is in a nursing facility or at home requiring round-the-clock care,” says Eleanor Blayney, president of Directions, a network of financial advisers, in McLean, Va. “Given an extended period of disability or need, these costs could wipe out the resources of many families,” says Blayney, a certified financial planner. So long-term care, or LTC, coverage provides a way to cover some or all of those very high expenses for a far lower cost in the form of premiums.

“That said, the major con of LTC insurance is that the premiums are still very high, causing many individuals who might otherwise purchase to decide they can’t afford it.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47703153

It seems like you are making the argument that there’s no way it can afford to be covered by Medicare.

It can’t be covered by Medicare. Especially since if it were available without spending your own money first, more people would do it rather than try to tough it out with family help.

It would have to be a whole separate system. It doesn’t even really make sense for it to be covered by Medicaid. Medicaid is suppose to be for medical care too. But it became a catch all for this form of poverty care - kind of like section 8 in a nursing home. It is killing the financials on Medicaid already and it is just going to get worse.

jamie needs another yacht for his ladies.

jamie needs another yacht for his ladies.

I never got a job from a man who didn’t own 3 yachts.

Price and Liquefaction is keeping us from looking in TO ourselves. That house is a fluke for $307K in a $425K fixer area. That Dover-Hendrix area is nice, but most of the floor plans don’t work for us. Nice large flat lots.
TO was just for that $307K diamond in the rough.Back to looking in Simi & Moorpark.

I’m happy for you. Bet you guys are firing up the Bar-B-Q and enjoying your yard.

Good point. I forgot that keeping gas prices low was one of the POTUS’s duties.

I think you’re being funny but it is a good point. I remember hearing the president say it WAS NOT his job to keep gas prices low

I agree with this its not his job

but it is his job to keep housing prices high?

interesting.

Comment by michael
2012-07-17 10:12:42
but it is his job to keep housing prices high?

interesting.
———————————————-

Odd isn’t it? This is the same guy that used campaign rhetoric to get elected that went something like “pay inflated prices for a house and what do you get?”

Well here we are 4 years later with prices inflated and creeping down, massive inventory and MBS investors sitting on huge losses related to housing waiting for a bail out.

(and no….. the other douchebag isn’t an acceptable alternative)

Was referring to the overdoses Slim not the murders.

US deputy attorney general James Cole said at a news conference in Washington that the settlement was ‘unprecedented’.
As part of the deal, GSK agreed to strict oversight of its sales force to prevent further bribery.
Sir Andrew Witty, the firm’s chief executive who was paid a total of $10.7 million last year, apologised and said the guilty employees had been removed.
‘Whilst these [offences] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored,’ he added.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167742/GlaxoSmithKline-pay-3b-fine-pleading-guilty-healthcare-fraud.html#ixzz20tjHKnq2

Lessons learn’t nothing to see here jog on.

My understanding of the relationship between suicide and antidepressants was this. You have someone who is profoundly depressed. Really in terrible shape. They have thought about suicide, but they are so depresed they can’t do what would be required to carry out the act. They get on antidepressants. The medicine starts to work, but it has to build up in your system over time, so, for a few weeks they are very depressed but a little more able to function than they were before the medication. In this time, they are at a higher risk for suicide because they are still very depressed and have been for a long time, but are capable of forming and carrying out a plan to commit suicide like getting their hands on a gun. If they get through those weeks and the medication continues to work, they will come out of the depression and not be a suicide risk anymore, but in the transitional phase, there is a higher risk of suicide.

Many Doctors are saying that many of these anti-depression drugs are causing people to commit suicide.

I just came back from the USA. It seems a lot of Americans are on anti-depression drugs. I knew of three people on them, then another friend offered me one from his bottle and then I heard 3 American flight attendants comparing notes on their different prescriptions.

All I can think of to say is Party on Dudes!!

All I can think of to say is Party on Dudes!!

(But don’t kill yourself!!!)

In our circle of friends, we know quite a few on on anti-depression drugs. Life is hard, sh*t happens, fortunes can come and go, etc.. You don’t learn to cope on drugs. I am vehemently against taking anti-depression meds. Our friends swear by them. All our friends don’t eat right, and are not in shape. How can you function balanced when your body and mind aren’t at their optimum.

Everything is a pill these days. I hate Big Pharma for these lifestyle drugs.

OK, rant is done.

You don’t learn to cope on drugs. I am vehemently against taking anti-depression meds. Our friends swear by them. All our friends don’t eat right, and are not in shape. How can you function balanced when your body and mind aren’t at their

A friend and I are doing an informal intervention. Another friend is in a state of depression, and we’re aiming to pull her out of it.

Reason: She has so much to offer the world, and she just needs to see that in herself.

This will take some doing, but we’re determined to do it. We don’t want to lose our friend.

Preliminary tests by big pharma showed that their pills had little more effect than a placebo, but the studies were suppressed.

Preliminary tests by big pharma showed that their pills had little more effect than a placebo, but the studies were suppressed.

There’s a very good book on this topic, The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth, by Irving Kirsch. Highly recommended by your HBB Librarian.

“All I can think of to say is Party on Dudes!!”

“I’ve never turned blue in someone else’s bathroom. I consider that the height of bad manners.” –Keith Richards

Another book recommendation - The Noonday Demon, by Andrew Solomon. It appears that if you have not lived through, or with, clinical depression, there are simply no words to describe it. It is NOT something to be taken lightly, and it is most certainly NOT something to dismiss unless you understand.

Sort of like the arrogance of sneering at those who lose family farms upon which they cannot pay the estate taxes.

Family farms do not generate the kind of cash required to pay estate taxes without selling the land to Uncle ConAgra. Tell the truth - how many of YOU, on a $40K income on a good year, can afford to come up with $150K to be able to afford to keep your living? It’s sort of like having to pay off a $150K student loan in one year.

Polly, about the family farm thing - you don’t know what you’re talking about, and worse, you are so arrogant that you don’t WANT to know.

About depression - the rest of you should pray that you never receive a first hand education.

I feel that way about new cars.

“We should aim for the glory days of the 1930s when deflation reined supreme.”

You can go normative on any comment of mine you want, but I was making a positive observation.

No that’s one of your lamest strawment Mr. Slithers.

Aiming for 1990’s prices works just fine.

We had 10+ years of deflation in the 30s and early 40s. Do you dispute this?

Nice try… no cigar.

So you dispute it.

It’s your strawman…. nobody elses.

So you dispute the fact that there was a 10 year period of deflation. Got it. Say, in your world, does the sun rise in the east of west.

Follow along now…. I didn’t dispute anything. I said “nice strawman”.

Housing prices are falling my friend.

Interest rates are falling.

Inventory is rising.

And the other good news is that rental rates are falling in some of the biggest markets in the country.

Rental rates are falling. See for yourself.

And rents are falling. Particularly in your area, Chicago.

Denver, DOWN 8.8%

Chicago, DOWN 4.8%

Los Angeles, DOWN 2.6%

NYC, DOWN 1.1%

http://newsroom.transunion.com/MediaLibraries/TransUnion/Documents/graphics/1Q12/Q1-2012_SolutionsReport.pdf

Sit tight while housing prices and rental rates continue to fall.

Sit tight while housing prices and rental rates continue to fall.

Bring it on. We’ve waited this long, can sit tight a little longer. But none of this “wait til 2025″ crap, cuz I’d like to own my own house while I’m still able to do fun stuff like knock down walls and install my own wind turbine.