The Housing Bubble

C’mon, you need not take yourself and the discussion so seriously. I know that may be difficult with a screen name like yours but at least try.

I was referring to the race-tinged debate taking place in the legacy media over Obama’s speech from ‘07. I linked above.

“I know that may be difficult with a screen name like yours but at least try.”

I aim to provide relevant humor here. But off topic posts are neither humorous nor relevant…

pppffffttttt!

Look at the link, which originates from Faux News. Look at the other link that originates from MSNBC (I’m sure there is something creative for this one). Relevant? The legacy media says it is, why else talk about it?

Also, with just that little bit of prompting, Rio posts an article about how stupid and racist we are.

Relevance my eye!

I aim to provide relevant humor here. But off topic posts are neither humorous nor relevant…

I must be hallucinating all those times you replied along the lines of “it’s the bits bucket, anything goes” when people have told you that your posts are irrelevant or whatnot.

OK, Michael, thanks for stepping in and refereeing my posts…

+1

I just like the way Dems change the way they talk when addressing a predominantly African American audience.

Almost as much as I like the way Romney changed the way he talked his 47% when in front of 50K per plate millionaires?

Do they have a class that teaches this or something? If they do they need new teachers. (Or less hidden cameras)

Um, Hillary’s spent a whole lot of her life in Arkansas? Obama actually IS part Negro? The call-and-response rhythm of black preachers is a time-honored oratorical technique? It’s not inauthentic if you can pull it off, Unk. There’s a reason poor Mitt fails so miserably at playing “just plain folks”.

People tend to understand you better if you speak in their same rhythms, pronunciations, and intonations. It’s a talent, not an affectation; just like being multilingual.

For example, don’t you talk differently with your friends than you do with the cop who stops you for speeding? If I tried to speak in PhD English to my rancher neighbors, their heads would explode. Conversely, when I’m giving a presentation to the chair of the physics department, I try not to tawk lack uh he-ick. Credibility requires accessibility and vice versa.

People tend to understand you better if you speak in their same rhythms, pronunciations, and intonations. It’s a talent, not an affectation; just like being multilingual.

People from Rio talk in a serious slang and dialect that even a gringo like me can easily tell. When they are amongst themselves it’s so thick you can cut it with a knife. But when someone from Rio is in a business meeting in Sao Paulo, the Rio accent and slang greatly lessen.

Having been away from a part of the mid-west that has an accent for half my life, that accent is gone now but when I spend a few weeks there, part of that accent and sound comes back. It’s just the way people and languages work.

John Stewart had a segment on how one of the two candidates painted their face brown for a TV interview on a Spanish language station. And how about the bits about buying shirts and Costco and ironing them yourself, or the I like Snooki??. Every politician since the beginning of politics has tried to act,dress,talk like those he wants to vote for him.

I speak differently to my Mississippi friends because guess what…I am from Mississippi.

I don’t speak any differently than I do now to any other person(s).

Al Gore, Hillary, and Biden did not grow up speaking jive.

and by knowing when NOT speaking Jive Ebonics…you got ahead in life….

So why is it that 90% of the inmates speak this language, and have no clue how to speak English?

“For example, don’t you talk differently with your friends than you do with the cop who stops you for speeding?”

Hell I talk differently when I am in an office setting or at my home or at a family gathering etc. than I do with my friends or on a job site. But it`s the words that I use that change not the way I say them. When I or one of my friends or co-workers slips and uses job site language in an office setting we call it “potty mouth”.

I do not change the way I say words when I am talking to a black guy. I have known and talked to a lot of black
people for a long time now and they never had any trouble understanding me and I never had any trouble understanding them. I always figured they knew I was white and always assumed that they knew that I knew they were black.

But back to…

“For example, don’t you talk differently with your friends than you do with the cop who stops you for speeding?”

Absolutely

Whenever I have been stopped by a cop I would say things like….. Yes officer No sir Thank you officer

Where as a friend might get….WTF do you want? Hey, your team s@cks or maybe Damn your ugly

But it`s the words that I use that change not the way I say them.

Because you wouldn’t know how. Not even close. Because you are not 1/2 black and 1/2 white. You have no idea of Obama’s reality.

“Because you wouldn’t know how. Not even close. Because you are not 1/2 black and 1/2 white. You have no idea of Obama’s reality.”

And here I didn`t even know Joe Biden, Al Gore and Hillary were 1/2 black and 1/2 white. It is a good thing for Obama though, what do 1/2 black and 1/2 white people have a switch they can throw depending on who they are talking to? Must be pretty cool.

It is a good thing for Obama though, what do 1/2 black and 1/2 white people have a switch they can throw depending on who they are talking to? Must be pretty cool.

I’m Route 66 born. I’ve lived on both coasts, the Mid-west, the East and the South. I’ve been to 49 states and many countries.

The ability to relate to the subject of linguistically understanding the point that you scoff at, is pretty darn cool.

Mid-Western Translation: It fuc%in ROCKS!

I learned to talk in LA, the state. Started school in Germany. Grew up mostly in NY and Az.

When ever I talk to people I slip into the regional accent without even knowing it.

Regardless of all the partisan bickering, we find our nation in great peril due to the abject incompetence and progressive politicking of the current administration. They are failing to protect our interests at home and abroad, so much so that they willingly sacrificed four American patriots in Libya.

This is not Democrat vs. Republican, this is Global Progressives vs. The west. Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were all Democrats and they took the protection of our nation seriously, they were Americans first. What happened? How did the present day Democrat party become the party of the global progressive anti-capitalist movement?

The progressives in this country must be defeated or our future will be a country that none of us recognize. Good patriotic Democrats need to take the party back, become the party of the middle class and keep this nation secure.

we find our nation in great peril due to the abject incompetence and progressive politicking of the current administration.

You are a fool. It goes back to the policies of the supply-side, trickle-down idiots. What jobs did “progressives” ever outsource?

I have actually come to realize that the greedy power
hungry don’t care what color their slaves are , all that is important is that they have control and they reduce populations to slaves ,while they take the money and run by rigged systems . If you pay low unliveable wages you are saying that you want that worker to be a slave and their life doesn’t matter .If you take away the power of workers by leaving the Country to exploit world slave labor you are saying that you want slaves with no quality of life .

They use to openly have slaves in this Country ,now they just say that everybody is free with equal opportunity ,while they control the opportunity and the
income and wages and prices and certain races get hurt more than others . Blame the worker and call them non competitive and accuse them of wanting to much . It’s all a greed game and a power game rather than a discrimination game because they are willing to enslave any color .

So ,go ahead and attack me for this post .I’m not saying its
correct ,its just what was going through my mind this morning .

I’ve used the word “slavery” here quite a few times and I don’t use it lightly. That is where we’re headed. It is avoidable for individuals, but starts with avoiding debt. It may require a willingness to accept a lower standard of living than your peers for quite a while as they go into debt and you don’t.

I agree Carl. The personal battle for freedom has to do with needing less than our peers. It is socially unacceptable usually. Slaves love company.

Carl, do we really have to “avoid debt” altogether, or is it enough to “stay solvent?” For example, I bought a house. Sure, I owe money on the house, but I could probably sell the house tomorrow for what I owe on it and (barely) break even. Each month I get a little more ahead, while as a renter each month I fell a little more behind. So I’m in debt, but still solvent as long the DC area keeps its jobs. Is that acceptable, or do I need to somehow produce a couple hundred large and buy a house outright in order to avoid being branded by HBB as a p*mp and a realtor’s b***h and *ho**?

That said, I think we need a better word than “slavery.” That word means captured, tied with a chain, whipped if you don’t work, owned, sold, chased after if you run away, children taken, and the like. Is that where you think we’re going — in America? ISTM that they don’t need to do that, since there is plenty of available labor. They’ll just fire you and hire someone else. In that sense, we’re free, even if we’re free to starve.

“It may require a willingness to accept a lower standard of living than your peers for quite a while as they go into debt and you don’t.”

I’m already there. However it looks like I am forced to make whole my peer’s creditors when my peers walk away from their debts. Do we not live in a republic?

Unless you think your house appreciated 10% the day you bought it, how could you break even selling it today? If the market slides over the next years you will not be solvent on the house for a very long time, JMO. But that’s just math.

A better term than ’slavery’–how about ‘indentured servitude’?

Let’s just call it what it is. Changing the name of things to soothe the spendthrift is distasteful.

Unless you think your house appreciated 10% the day you bought it, how could you break even selling it today?

I worded that carefully, Blue. I said…

I could probably sell the house tomorrow for what I owe on it

… not what the price was. I DID put money down, you know. But if I sold, I would probably have to bring tax/realtor money to the table. Especially since I’ve tied up a fair bit of cash in repairs/renovations. Oh well, what’s done is done.

Let just call it what it is? I said that it was NOT slavery. And until there are workers in chains, workers whipped, workers dragged back under bounty, and workers sold on the auction block, it is NOT slavery.

To use that word for anything else is to soothe the harshness of history. And that is far FAR more distasteful.

Carl, do we really have to “avoid debt” altogether, or is it enough to “stay solvent?” For example, I bought a house. Sure, I owe money on the house, but I could probably sell the house tomorrow for what I owe on it and (barely) break even. Each month I get a little more ahead, while as a renter each month I fell a little more behind. So I’m in debt, but still solvent as long the DC area keeps its jobs. Is that acceptable, or do I need to somehow produce a couple hundred large and buy a house outright in order to avoid being branded by HBB as a p*mp and a realtor’s b***h and *ho**?

That said, I think we need a better word than “slavery.” That word means captured, tied with a chain, whipped if you don’t work, owned, sold, chased after if you run away, children taken, and the like. Is that where you think we’re going — in America? ISTM that they don’t need to do that, since there is plenty of available labor. They’ll just fire you and hire someone else. In that sense, we’re free, even if we’re free to starve.

Got busy with work and didn’t have time to respond. Maybe no point now, but I hate to leave something undone….

I can’t help what you get branded on the HBB. I don’t like us talking to each other like that, but I’m not the boss. I do think that this is a very dangerous time to assume that solvent today means solvent 5 years from now.

I understand the full implications of the word slavery. I don’t expect us to get whipped and chained, but only because the whole world is being turned into a plantation. There will be nowhere to run, and therefore no need for such ugliness. You (and your children) can play the game their way or starve. Unless you managed to carve out enough to survive on without debt…

“Oh well, what’s done is done.”

Yes it is. I don’t think anyone cares if you own property or not. You did call all of us who advised caution idiots basically. Remember saying rent is cash in the trash? Remember telling us you were going to profit, profit, profit? A little blowback was justified.

“I think the joke is on us.”

National theme.

“How does voting for bammy help black people?

I think the joke is on us.”

It allows you to say “we won.” It is empowering for blacks, you can’t deny that.

Too much Bull $h!T.

Too much Bull $h!T. math and logic.

No…It’s BS. Go peddle your Global Progressive anti-capitalist propaganda on the Brazilian or Cuban blogs.

No…It’s BS. Go peddle your Global Progressive anti-capitalist propaganda on the Brazilian or Cuban blogs.

LOL. Your side failed. I am an American (USA) born patriot who knows 10X as much about American history as you ever will. That’s why I scare you so. You’re sad. But I’m willing.

Wiki genius. No heart for things.

Wiki genius.

Well…you’re half right. But you usually are.

The bar and restaurant games are not really laundering money from illegal activities, as it is under reporting income from legal activities.

The bar and restaurant games are not really laundering money from illegal activities, as it is under reporting income from legal activities.

It’s both. Cash-heavy businesses allow you to fudge in either direction.

And what frustrates me most of all is that my brother is an entrepreneur, starting a restaurant. My mom does his books and by damn, she wants no monkey business.

He has employees, and so he watches every penny (matches tickets to receipts to cash and counts food).

If there is another business in town that plays games to minimize their taxable income, it puts him at a disadvantage competitively.

The government is not the only loser here…it’s hard working, honest people too.

So you can show up at a closing with a briefcase full of cash?

I guess they could use the cash to get the cashier’s check at some bank but there would be a record wouldn’t there?

There are also a lot of corrupt families that come over here from Asia with ill gotten gains and pay cash for commercial real estate to hide it from their home countries. They really don’t care if the real estate generates money. They just want a place to hide it and get it back some day. At least there is a lot of that in the SF Bay Area. I know if a lot of empty warehouses that have a few S-Class Mercedes or Ferrari parked in them owned by cash rich Asian families. So in some cases just buying the real estate is the laundering. Only is cross-border laundering. And the U.S. government doesn’t really care how they got the money back in their home countries. If they want to invest cash here - bring it on is how they look at it. Shameful but true.

This applies to educated (and mostly white) people.

Our grad school econ prof theorized that the Opportunity Cost of Lucky Duckies having that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th kid was so low there is no reason not to have them.

Well, when you think about it, a SNAP card is more dependable (if less generous) than a job these days.

“Well, when you think about it, a SNAP card is more dependable (if less generous) than a job these days.”

One of the comments from the Oakland, CA murder story I posted last evening said the EBT card is the Gold Card of the ghetto.

where to look

Or where to listen, where Spanish is being spoken.

But it’s Racist® to say that.

Why did we build a society that was based on ever expanding population to fund the Ponzi schemes ,when you need jobs for a expanding population ?

The earth is being gutted and destroyed in trying to support to much population World wide .50 years ago people would talk about how automation would destroy jobs ,and in part that happened ,but also slave labor is doing it’s part in gutting the job base in the USA and other
Countries .

You have Countries in which their populations are so large ( China and India ) ,that it’s scary actually . What is sustainable really in terms of population and in terms of
not having millions starving ?

While the systems are supporting the great profit surge of
the product makers and Multi-national Corporations and globe trotters and slave labor exploiters ,the actual populations in many Countries are going downhill with unemployment and poverty ,or unsustainable debt that results in winners and losers being chosen .

It’s the last great surge of the Profit takers and bubble makers as long as they have the power to amass the wealth of the World by this rigged deck .

It could be worse. We could share a border with China or India.

Good point X-GSfixr.

I’m still not seeing how automation is going to replace me, or anyone else who maintains this stuff.

Any idiot who participates in the development of an “Expert System” deserves to lose his job.

They only way they are “saving” money in my business is extending inspection intervals. This won’t be a problem, until it is a problem. You don’t have to pay that $50-70/hour local guy anymore to do preventative maintenace, but you will end up paying the factory guy $150-200/hour in two years, when the problem wasn’t found locally, but at a major inspection.

First they came for the makers,
Then they came for the drivers,
Then they came for the fixers….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/driverless-cars-in-california_n_1914204.html

but you will end up paying the factory guy $150-200/hour in two years,

But I want my bonus NOW!!! Waaah!

Autonomous cars use computers, sensors and other technology to operate independently, but a human driver can override the autopilot function and take control of the vehicle at any time.

Like on those Toyotas that malfunctioned a few years ago, which ignored “overrides” like shifting into neutral or turning off the ignition?

I also wonder how one of these cars will behave in a high density traffic situation.

I saved an airplane from (at minimum) an inflight emergency a year or so ago, by noticing two drops of hydraulic fluid on the floor after the airplane was pushed outside, dripping from a place it shouldn’t have been dripping from.

Hard to see anyone developing a machine that has judgement, especially considering that my Mk I eyeballs will eventually get paid with Third World funny money.

Hard to see anyone developing a machine that has judgement, especially considering that my Mk I eyeballs will eventually get paid with Third World funny money.

Certainly there are jobs that will be secure, but if massive unemployment and falling demand hit the country a lot fewer people will be flying. It’s the opposite of herd immunity.

Any idiot who participates in the development of an “Expert System” deserves to lose his job.

I’m not. My company is automating the loading and unloading of devices under test from the test machines, though.

Being indie is great if you’re good at what you do, and you can manage your money.

And if you are good at finding potentials customers and selling yourself, something which most people are really bad at doing.

Sure Most people would want a guaranteed income…its called a full time job…..heck you can pay your bills on time, buy a car and not worry if you can pay it off.

But if we all become the Indie nation, working a lot off the books, then what?

Save when times are good for when times are lean, pay your bills, and pay cash for your cars.

No worries, and no feeding the banks. With cars, you get to deny the insurance companies full coverage premiums.

No need to work off the books, but that strikes me as a fairly libertarian thing to do if you’re into it.

You can take charge of your destiny, or you can let somebody else take charge of it and throw you the scraps.

“That’s OK, dj. You aren’t qualified to do any of the jobs listed in the article anyway.”

LOL!

“That’s not what Romney is selling. He is selling a lower tax rate offset by less deductions resulting in a revenue neutral simplification of the tax code.”

This is quite similar to Simpson Bowles…we won’t know who the winners/losers are until the details come out. Based on the article that I read however, it is not obvious that the 1% would be winners.

Here is the first analysis with any numbers in it that I could find:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/02/tax-plan-specifics-from-mitt-romney/

Tax plan specifics! From Mitt Romney!
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 2, 2012

Tease:

Even if you assume the plan will be maximally stringent, it doesn’t look like this would raise enough money to pay for Romney’s tax cuts. Remember that to make the numbers work, Romney would have to fully eliminate all itemized deductions — and a few deductions beyond that — for wealthy taxpayers. This doesn’t go anywhere near that far. William Gale, of the Tax Policy Center, says the net revenue would likely be in the $1-$2 trillion range, while Romney’s rate cuts are in the $5 trillion range, though he cautions that that’s just a guess based on Romney’s description of the idea.

It’s also very difficult to see how Romney achieves his goal to keep the plan distributionally neutral using this policy. Remember that when the Tax Policy Center looked at Romney’s rate cuts, they went “top-down,” meaning they eliminated every dollar of deductions for people making more than $200,000 before eliminating any dollar of deductions for people making less than $200,000 — and they still couldn’t make the policy as progressive as the current system. This idea, while it hits the rich harder than it hits the poor, is not nearly so progressive, which means it does imply a net tax increase on those making less than $200,000 and a net tax cut on those making more than $200,000.

Based on the article that I read however, it is not obvious that the 1% would be winners.

Of course its not obvious, that’s the last message they would want to get out, even if it is their goal.

It’s also very difficult to see how Romney achieves his goal to keep the plan distributionally neutral using this policy

Which is why they are being so mum about the details. But really, who would Romney stick it to? The Fat Cats he cavorts with or the average Joe 6 Pack?

it is not obvious that the 1% would be winners.

Here. I’ll make it more “obvious”. The Repubs are proposing it. Obvious enough? Read recent history.

Another question is whether tax advantaged defined contribution retirement accounts are included in the cap. I’m pretty sure the 401(k) individual contribution limit is $17,000 this year (not including any match your employer coughs up or the “catch up” contributions for older folks). How many people would put anything in a 401(k) if they were currently taxed on the entire amount because their other items used up their unified itemized deduction? I guess you have to convert the contributions to Roth 401(k)s, but that has further impacts on future taxes. Would the employer matches (if any) then be another previously untaxed item that becomes a taxable one that could be part of the itemized deduction?

What about flex spending accounts?

What about the excluded contributions to college savings accounts?

What about stuff that is deducted on the 1040, but isn’t part of the itemized deductions schedule like student loan interest? What about all the education related tax credits?

People use this stuff. My deductions are pretty darn puny, but even if you don’t add back in the 401(k) stuff (my contributions and the match), but I get pretty close to the $17,000 if you just count state/county taxes, health insurance and the funds I put in my medical flexible spending account, and charitable contributions. That is with no mortgage, no property taxes, only a single person on the health insurance, no child care costs deduction, etc. Add in the 401(k) stuff and I am way over.

Under that scenario (including the retirement account stuff), I think I might come out close to even with the 20% rate cut just about offsetting having to pay the slightly lower highest marginal rate on the additional income. Anyone with higher deductions than I have would be screwed even at an income way, way below the $200K limit that has been thrown around as the over/under for having to pay more under the Romney plan.

If you read further in the Ezra Klein post, he points out that capping overall deductions is kind of brilliant politically because it doesn’t go after any particular deduction - all of which have substantial backing from various industry groups to try to prevent their particular benefit from being the one to get axed. Yes, being put on the list of “deductions” (some of them are currently exclusions, not actual deductions) is bad for the industry, but not being picked on directly gets a little less sympathy. Even if you assume that employer provided health insurance is included, the idea only gets you $1 trillion bucks, which doesn’t come close to offsetting the $5 trillion cost of the 20% rate cut. If employer provided health insurance isn’t incldued, it offsets even less of the rate cut.

Romney has never, that I am aware of, explicitly backed S-B.

How can Romney publicly support S-B during the election season when it is the Obama administration’s plan (which he failed to progress)? He needs to differentiate himself from Obama, not look the same.

I’m simply noting where his policies bear similarities to S-B.

Unless they are going to eliminate the lower rate on capital gains, it is mathematically impossible for it to be revenue neutral and distributionally neutral. The Tax Policy Center study (using the best possible assumptions since they had limited details to work with) proved that.

No matter what, pretty much everything Republicans have passed over the past thirty years has ended up screwing me somehow, and benefited the bankster 1% class.

Screw everything else, I’m voting my wallet this time.

Assuming I vote…….most of my fellow citizens in 2banana Utopia are still drinking the kool-aid, or think that Fundie Christians should be running the school boards and women’s wombs.

Not in local and state politics. Have you heard of low cost of living?

Not in local and state politics

Hmmm … with the exceptions of W Virginia and Kentucky, all of these states have Republican executives, Republican senators (Louisiana was 1D, 1R) and had large GOP majorities in the House. Wiki did not list the state legislature make up, but it would make sense that they would mirror the federal percentages.

Have you heard of low cost of living?

Other than housing costs everything else: food, healthcare, education, energy, etc. is just as expensive as everywhere else.

Hmmm … with the exceptions of W Virginia and Kentucky, all of these states have Republican executives, Republican senators (Louisiana was 1D, 1R) and had large GOP majorities in the House. Wiki did not list the state legislature make up, but it would make sense that they would mirror the federal percentages.

You are missing the point. Yes it’s republican heavy at the moment but local and state elections have always been (or competitive (actually democratic heavy in many cases) in recent past. On the other hand, these states have predominantly voted R in presidential elections since the 70’s. It’s not a recent phenomenon that these states are bottom of the barrel.

I believe that small business does need tax breaks or the elimination of things that make it impossible for small business to thrive . But I think its more a issue of the Big Monopolies making it impossible for small business to
be competitive .

Code refers to any body of statutes.

Code of Hammurabi

US Code

etc.

OSHA has laws that it is supposed to enforce. Just tell your customer to ask the inspector to provide the citation to the title and section that requires the new fire extinguisher. By the way, why doesn’t your customer WANT to have the appropriate fire extinguisher on his premises?

“I talk to business men as a part of my job. Regulations are a major cost and concern to these folks. To be honest, there are so many out there they have no idea what they’re supposed to do.”

Smart businessmen that are well established are often responsible for these regulations, which act as a barrier to underfunded start-ups.

Example: I had one of my customers tell me that OSHA made them buy “new fire extinguishers” because the code required it

Yawn……I was a job “creator” - a self-employed business owner for 20 years. I never saw OSHA.

The thought of East Coast or California kids moving out here is just laughable. They can stand at the end of the lines of locals trying to apply for part time, $8/hour jobs at Burger King, WalMart, or Home Despot.

(Was talking with a guy in the shop yesterday, met a woman who had been a manager in a local fast food joint for 23 years; she was getting paid $10.50/hour)

Every single kid around here is trying to find a way to get to NYC, San Fran, or SoCal. Most end up in DFW.

Has anyone EVER heard a kid say he wanted to move somewhere because he was anti-union, and was worried about high taxes?????

ALL THE TIME.

Especially when these kids figure out (about the age 25) that hanging out in NYC and living like pauper is really not so cool anymore. Even with a kewl club scene.

And when they actually want to own a house and start a family. They do the math with what the city/state/fed are taking out of their paycheck. And what a house costs. And how INSANE propert taxes are (and will never go down).

Then, ALL OF SUDDEN, democrats, public unions and high taxes just are not so cool anymore.

Has anyone EVER heard a kid say he wanted to move somewhere because he was anti-union, and was worried about high taxes?????

Every single kid around here is trying to find a way to get to NYC, San Fran, or SoCal.

Same here. And Colorado is supposed to be “semi-cool”. All my kid’s friends want to move to California.

Has anyone EVER heard a kid say he wanted to move somewhere because he was anti-union, and was worried about high taxes?????

I never did, and I lived 15 years in SoCal. Friends would sometimes salivate over cheaper housing in flyover, but in the end few made the move. Californians seem to have an innate phobia regarding “snow”. When we announced our move to Colorado our friends reacted as if we were nuts. “But what about the winters?” they whined.

And after we moved here and when people found out that we came from San Diego we often got responses of the “Why on Earth did you do that?” variety. They simply couldn’t believe that we chose Colorado over California.

Laugh if you want, but the first thing the transplants do after they arrive is complain about how its “different here” and how the way things were done back east is better. They complain that the place is a “cow town” with no real culture.

Frankly, if I wanted to fly like the military, I’d have joined the military.

A very good friend is a retired USAF F-15 Eagle pilot. He’s a great guy, but sotto voce, I don’t think he ever made a successful transition to civilian life.

I think a big part of the reason why is because he was/is an adrenaline junkie. And what could possibly top flying the Eagle? It’s a kick-butt fun plane to fly.

By comparison, the civilian life is pretty dull.

I mean we do have one heck of a big debt to pay down.

We only add to the debt and as long as that is the case paying down the debt cannot be justification for rates.

“We only add to the debt and as long as that is the case paying down the debt cannot be justification for rates.”

I don’t understand this - can you restate it?

15% rate is ridiculously low. … I mean we do have one heck of a big debt to pay down.

The ability to increase revenue (for purposes such as paying down the debt) by increasing tax rates went away long ago. Its not as simple as the federal income tax rates alone the problem is in the aggregate of all taxes, fees, confiscations, …etc.

The serious point is that you cannot increase revenue by increasing rates due to the high level of existing taxation.

The humorous point is that you are arguing that the proposed rates are too low given the high level of debt yet we do not use our revenue to pay down debt, we borrow more instead.

Tango is wrong. Dropping the rates by 20% means to take the current rate structure and multiply each one by 80% (also known as .8). 35% goes to 28%. 28% goes to 22.4%. etc.

I like the idea too…I just don’t think the idea happening will have the effect you think.

Why?

Why?

Because you only get a big benefit from the MID if you would be paying a lot of tax otherwise.

You are only paying a lot of tax otherwise if you are in higher tax brackets.

If you are in the higher tax brackets, then the decrease of tax being paid by virtue of those tax brackets being reduced tends to offset the lack of benefit from the MID.

Got it so in this case it would be revenue neutral is what you are saying.

However, with a little tweeking you could make the rates such that any given bracket would be revenue neutral, positive or negative as desired.

I still like it even if it is because it decreases incentives to buy housing for example just to get a tax deduction. In other words all things being equal there is in general less malinvestment in housing or donations or any other deductible expense.

I also like it because it makes enforcement and compliance easier and therefore less expensive. Although in this case why not just get rid of all the deductions. Do we really need to deduct 1/2 of our social security or have a deduction for ourselves, etc? Why not just build it all into a standard progress set of tax rates? Then enforcement and compliance costs will drop to a marginal amount. It would put lots of accountants and lawyers out of work I know. Poor souls. Who wouldn’t like a tax system where you plugged in your income as the sole variable and calculate your taxes based on that and you are done. How easy would audits be? And it can still be progressive. Guys like me should pay a higher rate than the middle class or the poor.

So, how about capping at 17k and RAISING taxes by 2%? That should be even better, right? *insert smiley emoticon here*

@SF Bay Area:

There was a study that was linked here on the HBB a little while back from a Berkeley economist. He was studying the progressivity of the tax code. I’m sure you can dig it up, in any event, he wasn’t pushing hard on income tax increases for the wealthy as a way to make the code appropriately progressive.

He noted two big areas that needed improvement with respect to making the tax code more progressive:

1. Capital Gains rates are too low relative to ordinary income; and
2. Too many corporate tax loopholes.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Simpson-Bowles suggests equalizing capital gain and ordinary rates (and lowering the marginal rates across the board), and cutting out loopholes for individuals as well as corporations while lowering corporate tax rates.

This is why Obama’s position is so frustrating. They blame Bush era tax cuts for a big portion of the deficit over the past 4 years, yet they only want to increase rates on the wealthy. The estimate that I saw noted that this increased revenues to the government by $800B over a decade for only letting part of the Bush cuts lapse (on the high earners). If they let all rates go back to pre-Bush tax cut rates, it would increase revenues by $4 Trillion over the same time.

So, in one breath, Obama’s team is blaming these tax cuts for a big portion of the deficit, and in the next breath, his team is suggesting that a good way forward is to leave 80% of those tax cuts in place.

In one breath during Obama’s convention speech, he suggests that it is good policy to go back to the highest marginal income tax rate for the wealthy (like during the Clinton years), and in literally the next sentence, he says that he is anxious to strike a deal based on the principles of the Simpson Bowles commission.

These are two opposite directions, as Simpson Bowles would raise capital gains rates, and lower income tax rates to below where they are today.

Raising taxes on the wealthy vis-a-vis ordinary rate increases is politically driven. It doesn’t deal with the “Buffett (Romney) Rule” issue, it doesn’t deal with “carried interest”, it doesn’t deal with high corporate tax rates, but it is an expedient political position. It hurts people who are already paying a healthy marginal rate (especially when you consider many of these folks pay state taxes–which aren’t deducted for AMT purposes, as well as self-employment taxes on a portion of their income).

S-B tax reform deals with the Buffett (Romney) Rule issue (people who derive much of their income from capital gains), it makes the discussion about carried interest irrelevant, and changes corporate tax code. Yet Obama couldn’t move this reform forward.

Was it because he made too many enemies during his first 2 years in office by pushing through big legislation? Or because he couldn’t navigate the political landscape? Or because he didn’t want to?

In any event he failed–yet people lap up every word of his speeches, without recognizing that Obama’s stated position on income taxes going forward is 80% of Bush’s position. And the one thing that would push him away from Bush’s position (the S-B commission tax reforms), he let die on the vine.

@SF Bay Area

Ignoring my last rant (which is probably stuck in the “metering lights”), I agree with you…we need to simplify the tax code, and stop with the deductions that can create malinvestment and distorted incentives.

Gotta wipe the slate clean and start over again.

Simpson-Bowles was on their way to that.

Rental Watch that is one of the best missives I have read in a long time! I love it!

However, it depresses me. Why? Because in less than two minutes you absolutely cleaned the floor with Obama’s failed platform. You didn’t use personal attacks or straw man types arguments. You just clearly stated why his platform is wrong and how it can be fixed. I’m depressed because after watching the debate last night I have to ask why can’t Romney say this?

I think I’ve voting for you as president on my write in ballot.

Romney as much did say it by saying the Obama should have grabbed Simpson Bowles and tweaked it to get it through Congress.

“MR. LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles. Will you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.

MR. LEHRER: No, I mean do you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it; and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan, (a balanced ?) –

MR. ROMNEY: But you’ve been — but you’ve been president four years. You’ve been president four years. You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later. We still have trillion- dollar deficits.”

This is my biggest problem with Obama today. He is asking us to trust him on his adjusted Simpson-Bowles, despite having since the last election with the S-B roadmap…he didn’t take his case to the American public, largely ignored the recommendations, has no working relationship with Republicans, and the most vigorous tax policy he is pushing for is a different direction than S-B, and as Romney put it quite well last night, going to slow job growth.

I don’t think we can afford running these deficits for another 4 years, and I don’t think Obama can get the job done (as evidenced by his failure so far to get something done).

But Romney cut his own throat tonight, and Obama wisely kept his head down and let him do it.

The video mash-ups and split screen ads of Mitt lying through his teeth and shaking his etch-a-sketch will be brutal and ubiquitous. And his contemptuous treatment of Jim Lehrer will not go unpunished by the Powers That Matter. You just don’t mess with Big Bird….

You don’t tug on Superman’s cape,
You don’t spit into the wind,
You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
and you don’t mess around with Jim.

– Jim Croce

Well ahansen what you say is exactly how I felt about the debate ,but the current polls don’t reflect my impression
of the debates .

The die-hards who watch the debate (and had a clue what the candidates were talking about) comprise a miniscule portion of those who haven’t already made up their mind.

Their opinion matters in direct proportion to their numbers, I.E.; negligible. Just keep checking in with fivethirtyeight.org for the probabable outcomes.

Not me. I want to cut the military budget by at least 50%. But I am exiting on this one for awhile because the EF-fing haters are going to still sling their $hit at me now. I’m a libertarian.

“Do you guys really want vouchers for medical care ?”

“I want to cut the military budget by at least 50%.”

Both programs need serious cuts and reforms, IMHO.

My #1, #2 and #3 priorities for the next president are (in no particular order);

1. Get the budget under control and deficit on a path to sustainability;
2. Get the budget under control and deficit on a path to sustainability;
3. Get the budget under control and deficit on a path to sustainability;

To do this will require a bipartisan approach where plenty of people and interest groups don’t get their way.

From what I’ve seen, Obama has a smaller probability of getting this done than Romney. Obama bullied the right when he could and has no working relationship with them. Romney had to work with the left as governor.

NOT getting this done is akin to a license to print from the Fed, especially since we have lots of doves currently running the Fed (not just the Bernanke).

That printing is incredibly risky in my opinion, and may result in a situation where we lose control of the situation (inflation, etc.).

Well ,I would love to just get rid of the Private Insurance Companies in health care ,they are just costing to much IMHO.