The Housing Bubble

There aren’t only two sides. If everyone believes they can only choose between bad and worse then we’ve already lost.

BERNIE!!!

hahaha… thought of you Goon when I saw the link on Drudge to that story…

Beer ads from the 1950s

https://envisioningtheamericandream.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/beer-belongs-tennis-pool.jpg

Whew! How horrible. Thanks to the brave men and women of the armed forces, we’ll never see days like this again.

I consider the period from 9/11/2001 up to W’s reelection in 2004 to be the darkest days of my adult lifetime as an American citizen, voter, and taxpayer.

“These guys aren’t going to stop spending.” These guys are Hillary Jeb. Certainly Bernie. Heck maybe even Trump also. But of those choices, Trump is the only one that might even consider it.

Here’s something interesting on the audience plant blog:

‘This current fail also exemplifies how the broadcast media, specifically CNN, is willing to assist the republican cause when there is a mutual benefit to the elimination of an enemy.’

‘However, it is also further evidence of the entire construct of the Jeb Bush alliance. There are eight candidates remaining in the race specifically to assist Jeb Bush and help him win the nomination. They are:

Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio (FL)
Carly Fiorina (VA)
Chris Christie (NJ)
John Kasich (OH)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Mike Huckabee (AR)
George Pataki (NY)
Jim Gilmore (VA)

‘A vote for any of these fraud candidates will only result in a later endorsement of Jeb Bush and the transference of delegates to assist his nomination efforts. This was/is the original design of the road map created to help Jeb win in 2016. [ Much More Here ]‘

‘The 2016 plan is similar in many ways to how Mitt Romney was able to win the nomination in 2012. If you remove Donald Trump – Ben Carson becomes Herman Cain, Ted Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush replaces Mitt Romney.’

That’s pretty diabolical. You look at a ballot and what’s really there are 9 Jeb Bushes and a few others.

“X” is my favorite band! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOdMYZa3dA4

Would you deny a Bush his birthright?

Favorite X song: 4th of July. Didn’t know about them at all until about a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_tyWt_9Bfs

That’s not equality at all. You getting your retirement without paying your share is not equality. BTW, taxing the better off more with raising the SS cap doesn’t change the feature of the program whereby if you don’t pay much into the system while you are working, you don’t get much back.

There isn’t an income test now for SS.

being good also means not raiding the coffers of other socio-economic “classes” simply because they have more than you

Progressive taxation is not “raiding coffers” and has been an essential concept of American Civilization since our founding. Firstly on property and then for most the last 150 years on income, becoming an essential component of American Civilization.

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Thomas Jefferson

I don’t get your point Blue. Lifting the cap means everybody pays 6.2% of income to Soc Sec, even Trump. To make it “fair” there should no income test paying in and no income test on payouts. That would make the system completely equitable.

I love how WPA dangles just the spectre of means-testing—and then quickly dismisses it (we’re on the same side, see??!?) and uses that dismissal as a justification for a huge tax increase being not only ok, but preferable, almost desirable.

SS is already incredibly progressive, not on the tax-collection side (it’s a flat-tax, up to a cap), but on the benefits side. Those who pay in very little get WAY WAY more back (relative to what they paid in) than those who pay in a lot.

SS is already incredibly progressive, not on the tax-collection side (it’s a flat-tax, up to a cap), but on the benefits side.

So what? Some board member or sports athlete pays 6.2% on an $8 mil/year salary — will they notice it? Does their lifestyle change because of it? No.

And as someone quoted Will Rogers yesterday regarding trickle down, once the low-income seniors get their monthly checks it gets spent. That money flows into the economy and upward to the top, just like Will said. So ultimately the wealthy who pay the 6.2% get their money back.

I read somewhere that it’s only mildly progressive. Part of that may be because people on high incomes live longer then the poor.

“So what? Some board member or sports athlete pays 6.2% on an $8 mil/year salary — will they notice it? Does their lifestyle change because of it? No.”

You’re talking about raising the highest marginal rate from 39.6% to 45.8%. That’s a HUGE move.

Aside from the misconception that board members get paid anywhere close to $8MM, or ignoring the fact that athletes don’t have a lifetime of earning power, this attitude is why my wife is becoming Republican after being raised by a teacher who wouldn’t cross a picket line.

It’s “OK” to take from someone simply because they have more? Really?

This is the same logic used by white collar criminals when they try to squeeze a few more basis points of fees from their rich clients, or secretaries who embezzle money.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a little bit of this going through Bernie Madoff’s mind as he stole from his rich clients.

It’s “OK” to take from someone simply because they have more? Really?

Of course it’s OK. It’s called progressive taxation-a part of most every developed country and has been part of America for most of the past 150 years.

Whatever happens, please do all of you keep paying your payroll taxes. I’m counting on you.

You’re talking about raising the highest marginal rate from 39.6% to 45.8%. That’s a HUGE move.

Not really. The top rate in the 1950’s and early 1960’s was north of 90% and it was during a period of great prosperity, a growing middle class and full employment. And don’t forget the 6.2% contribution is pre-tax so the effective tax rate is less than 45.8%.

Here is the Simpson Bowles Plan on SS:

1. Make the retirement benefit more progressive (changing the “bend points” in the formula);
2. Increase the benefit for low-wage workers (thus reducing poverty);
3. Increase the benefit for those over 85, and those with long-term disabilities;
4. Gradually increase early and full retirement ages;
5. Create a hardship exemption for those who can’t work past 62;
6. Gradually increase the taxable maximum (under current law the max would go to $168k in 2020, S-B has it rise to $190k by then, and would continue to go up faster after that);
7. Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020 (mandate that they participate in SS);

These reforms would strengthen the safety net with those with more paying, and makes the plan sustainable for the long term.

Why was this set of reforms ignored for the past 5 years?

Of course it’s OK. It’s called progressive taxation-a part of most every developed country and has been part of America for most of the past 150 years.

You are correct, progressive taxation is about paying more the more you make.

Everyone contributes into the system based on their ability to pay.

So, if the system needs more money (because there is no way to cut spending), the appropriate way under a progressive tax system is to have everyone pay a bit more. The wealthy increase their contribution more than the middle class, but everyone contributes a bit more to keep the system solvent.

In this way, everyone has a stake in the system NOT being wasteful. And if the majority of people are OK with paying a little more for the system (each according to their ability to pay), then that is appropriate and would be fine with me.

What is being proposed is that the ENTIRE burden of that need is being heaped upon a small subset of the population.

There is nothing progressive about that.

Not really. The top rate in the 1950’s and early 1960’s was north of 90% and it was during a period of great prosperity, a growing middle class and full employment.

And a lot more deductions. The average tax rate was nowhere close to 90% for the wealthiest Americans–ISTR reading where the effective tax rate for the wealthiest American’s wasn’t much different than the 2000’s. Just like corporate taxes at 35% doesn’t really mean 35% today.

Incidentally, in the 1950s, the tax rate for the poorest Americans was well above what it is today as well. The lowest marginal rate then was 20%…from $0 to $2,000 in 1950.

I suppose you aren’t proposing to double the lowest marginal tax rate to get back to your prosperity?

It’s like Obama touting the tax rates under Clinton as a recipe for success, but then NOT changing them back to the Clinton tax rates across the board (just for some).

the appropriate way under a progressive tax system is to have everyone pay a bit more.

A valid point. I would still exempt the poor. They pay a high share of their meager income in total taxes. (sales, property, state, city, utilities etc.)

http://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

See the chart on page 12. Note:

1. One of the authors of the paper is Thomas Piketty;
2. Income tax rates in 2004 for the richest were lower than they are today–so the right hand side of the 2004 chart would slope higher for the wealthiest than the chart right now (about 10% higher).
3. If tax rates created prosperity, then the poor, corporations, and wealthy estates are paying too little today as compared to 1960. The high earners are paying about the same today as 1960.

But don’t let the facts get in the way.

So, if we can get back to the 1960’s prosperity through tax policy, we should be working on:

1. Reforming corporate taxes;
2. Eliminating loopholes for estates (like the structures the Clintons are employing); and
3. Making everyone pay at least some, so there everyone has some “skin in the game”.

Remember this quote from Obama:

“I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple, fair and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 — (cheers, applause) — the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president, the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history and a whole lot of millionaires to boot.”

From his nomination acceptance speech in 2012.

Notice where he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth?

He equates “fairness” to raising taxes on the wealthy, but not everyone else in order to foster a strong economy…despite there being prosperity under Clinton when everyone else paid a bit more too.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would have still exempted the poor (as they were exempted under Clinton), and had everyone pay a bit more.

But it was more politically expedient to only target the wealthy. And so he did.

He equates “fairness” to raising taxes on the wealthy

Raising taxes on the rich can be argued fair when one considers a couple things in context.

1. It’s been almost only the rich who’ve benefited from increased productivity the past 30 years. And.

2. The TaxCutsForTheRich were sold to us that prosperity would “trickle down”. It didn’t but the rich benefited greatly.

Income tax rates in 2004 for the richest were lower

Slightly because some of BushTaxCutsForTheRich were rolled back, however income tax rates for the richest are lower now than in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950 etc.

income tax rates for the richest are lower now than in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950 etc.

Not necessarily when you take into consideration all the deductions. See the paper co-authored by Piketty that I posted above comparing 2004 to 1960.

Not necessarily when you take into consideration all the deductions. See the paper co-authored by Piketty

I’ve read many studies on the “not necessarily” part and most of those arguments have tons of conjecture and “maybes”.

But even if it were correct, the top .3% or so were much less rich in the 60’s relative to the middle-class, and capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than now. Therefore the rich were paying much more taxes in the 50-60’s relative to their wealth and wealth needs to be taken into serious consideration because it is wealth that enables much of their income to come from lesser taxed capital gains.

And it is wealth as well as income that is way out of whack with USA historical averages the past 100 years.

Lola,

You socialists have some real corrupt thinking.

Lola and her clones have outed themselves —– as communists. The other ones happened already.

Rio, you are now mixing income tax rates and things like capital gains and estate taxes.

Piketty shows that the effective income tax rate on high earners is about the same now as it was in the 1960s.

We need corporate tax reform to keep companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft from LEGALLY avoiding taxes in the US. People are pointing fingers at these companies, but the legal loopholes they are using exist due to a failure of government to close them.

Once people like the Clintons are willing to give up their “residence trusts” and other estate planning tools, we might see the kind of estate tax reforms that you are talking about. I’m not holding my breath, since there are entrenched interests on both sides that love the obscure corners of the tax code so Buffy and Charles can keep the house in the Hamptons after mumsy and daddy kick the bucket.

Once the populace can start to ignore the shiny object on which the politicians (and media) have had them focus (partnership taxation…carried interest), and turn their attention to the potential for a progressive capital gain tax structure on real gains (which would pull in the carried interest anyway), we might see higher taxes paid on capital.

In the meantime, we need to cut spending. The military complex is out of control. We have done nothing to slow the rise of healthcare costs in this country. The government is wasteful in many other places, and there ain’t no doubt about it.

However, if we are honest with ourselves, given demographics, the debt (and the soon-to-be rising cost of carrying that debt), we are running headfirst into a fiscal mess without a helmet, and people like my MIL are blindly listening to people who say everything will be OK. It won’t be OK without some major reforms…and soon (like what was suggested with Simpson-Bowles). It is unlikely that just cutting costs and entitlements will do the job.

However, people need to dig a bit deeper before they start talking about the wonderful years of 90% income tax rates in the 1950s and 60s, and how those 90% income tax rates are what we need.

High earners are about the only group that is paying what they did in the 1960s.

Corporations, lower income earners, the wealthy (non-W-2 earning crowd), are paying less–in some cases a lot less (like nothing instead of something).

Rio, you are now mixing income tax rates and things like capital gains and estate taxes.

Yes I am. To make the point that the rich are way richer today than in the 60’s but paying way less total taxes relative to their wealth and income than they did in the 60’s.

(Their balance sheet should be considered and not just their profit and loss statement when it comes to total taxes paid.)

+1

shhhhhh…..

Just pushing on a small string of SS, not the complicated matters.

Complicated? There’s nothing complicated about Ryan’s economics. Just more of the same.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/04/02/fox-touts-paul-ryans-new-budget-plan-ignores-ec/198715

Jared Bernstein: Ryan Budget “Perversely Asks For Sacrifices Only From Those Least Able To Bear It.” In Politico, CBPP senior fellow Jared Bernstein criticized Ryan’s budget for “Orwellian budget language” and pointed out that it “perversely asks for sacrifices only from those least able to bear it while providing large cuts in tax rates for those with ample resources.” Bernstein went on to criticize the budget’s austerity measures:

CBPP: Ryan Budget Would Create “More Poverty And Less Opportunity.” Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that under the Ryan budget, “Affluent Americans would do quite well. But for tens of millions of others, the Ryan plan is a path to more adversity.” Greenstein pointed out that the plan would leave millions without health insurance through repeals to the ACA’s coverage provisions and changes to Medicaid funding. Greenstein also criticized the budget for its impact on anti-poverty programs

EPI: “Ryan Budget Would Slow Recovery, Cost Jobs.” In a post on the Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics blog, Joshua Smith estimated that because of drastic spending cuts in Ryan’s budget, the plan would reduce economic growth and employment (emphasis in original):

Center for American Progress: “Ryan Budget Is A Broken Record Of Failed Economics.” The Center for American Progress called Ryan’s plan “the same conservative, top-down policies that have failed the nation’s middle- and working-class families, seniors, and the economy.” The report noted that Ryan’s budget includes drastic changes to Medicare and programs like Pell grants, food stamps, and Medicaid and criticized the budget for pushing further austerity measures:

NY Times: Ryan Budget Would Be “Destructive To The Country’s Future.” An April 1 New York Times editorial criticized Ryan’s budget for changes to Medicare and cuts to nondefense discretionary spending, calling Ryan “a man with very dangerous ideas”:

You ignored his dissection of the problems with the math in the ACA again.

lol@Lola

The national anthem of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It’s all funny but I don’t understand how “pulling out” could not be part of being manly.

It always ends and in order to pull out, one must have firstly gotten in.

Problem with those guys is they’re working with the realtor most of the time. I know a few of them and they’re taking referrals from the sell side and representing the buy side.

As is! ??

California has very strict disclosure laws…Particularly strict on 1-4 units…There is a significant duty to disclose on the seller, the sellers broker and the buyers broker…

The saying is; disclose everything you know or could have reasonably discovered…”As Is” condition does not get anyone off the hook…At least in California…

Given the over the top level of fraud in CA housing, I think it’s a moot point.

NY state does not require disclosure. In my own experience though nothing prevents a prospective buyer from requiring a disclosure.

There was a property (former gas station) sold in town here that was known to have had leaking gas tanks. The bank knew, but they didn’t warn the purchaser. That was a very expensive purchase. The DER was waiting for the property to change hands. Banks are not required to remediate, but the new owner was.

That one had to end up in court. RCRA=cradle to grave ownership.

Doesn’t seem right but there was no court. I was in fact interested in the property for my studio. I heard a rumor and called the DER myself. The DER agent, knowing the property well, explained that banks are exempted from responsibility and the new dupe would hold the bag. The original owner, or subsequent owners, didn’t have to remediate as long as the place was a gas station. The new owner didn’t keep it a gas station. So he had to dig it up all up and remediate.

And this right here explains why you see so many empty commercial properties that used to have a gas station on the premises (building may or may not still be standing).

Buyer beware!

In my state, the acronym for the program to deal with old gas stations cracks me up every time I say it, here it is spelled out: Liquid Underground Storage Tanks. Yes, that is what they actually called it!

‘Could you add it to the purchase contract that if it has Chinese Drywall they take it back’

Not if you want them to agree to it. As is. In Arizona they won’t even make the SPDS disclosures. They know eventually some aspiring cable TV idiot will take it off their hands.

You can’t. You’re not in the construction and contracting business.

You’re not in the construction and contracting business.

You don’t know that.

Yes he does.

crushing.housing.losses

Refute it my friend.

After suffering numerous decades of the treacherous thievery feedback loop of inflation, I welcome the deflationary feedback loop.

Only the rent seekers think inflation is a good thing. Oh and those with bubble jobs.

The unemployment already occurred my friend.

Labor Force Participation Rate Falls To 38 Year Low

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

“retail therapy,” people shop because they are bored.

follow the boomers

“and why?”

No reason apparently.

We know others from the US who have participated in activism without trouble from the government, and they haven’t made Brazil their home. So much for that.

We know others from the US who have participated in activism without trouble from the government,

No you don’t. You don’t know any American citizen/non Brazilian citizen, Brazilian “greencard” holder who actively protests the Brazilian government. You are FOS.

I’d say every 10th post yours has any importance.

Since when did any of your posts have any importance, truth or fact to it Lola?

Well you are wrong. But it doesn’t matter. You don’t really care one whit about the downtrodden. You might when they tread on your kind. Enjoy the games.

My friends, if they are still down there then will be on the street with the people they are there to help. May you and yours not brutalize them too much (more).

Well you are wrong. But it doesn’t matter.

It matters. Because I think you are flat-out lying Mr. Blue Sky.

My friends, if they are still down there

Good friends huh? “if they are still down there”

Any gringo guest of Brazil with only a “greencard” that has an expiration date, who owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in Brazilian real-estate, does business in Brazil, knows the ways of the Feds here and has family to take care of here would be a complete idiot to involve himself protesting that country in which he is a guest.

Yea but you “know a dude who knows a dude” who does it. (”if they are still down here”)

My friends, if they are still down there then will be on the street

Oh, on the street?

You have no idea on what marches on Copacabana beach anyone here has been part of dude, but actively taking on the politics of my host country on an American blog has no upside.

And I think you are FOS on your “activist friends in Brazil”.

Sure, none of the rest of us are likely to know anything about your Brazil. None of us are likely to know anyone down there. None of us are likely to know anyone who gives a crap about people more than their bubble investments. Your family is there, I’ll give you that. You might not be quite as special a snow flake as you think.

You can’t wait for the Games. You go Bubble Boy! Don’t pretend to care about anybody though.

Can’t post honestly on an American Blog, oh poor dear.

None of us are likely to know anyone down there.

Some do. You don’t. You just use the false projection as one of your 2nd rate “tools of debate”. And it wouldn’t mean anything even if it were true which it isn’t. Where’s the logic?

“Becuase I know a guy who knows a dude down there who cares that means you don’t”.

Debate fail.

/fail

Lola,

Why lie about this Brazil thing? Seriously. To what end?

It is hard to imagine why the bubble boy feels so threatened by me knowing someone who is down there and is outraged at the situation. Its’ not like they know him personally. Just that they know his kind. Why the rage?

It is hard to imagine why the bubble boy feels so threatened by me knowing someone who is down there and is outraged at the situation.

I’m not threatened because it is so dumb. I just enjoy pointing out the dumbness. It’s a lie imo. Outrage is one thing, actively protesting a country that is not their own while they are a guest is so rare that it’s a rounding error. How many of you know anything like that in Brazil? I don’t, and I’ve been involved with Brazil for 30 years.

Let’s do the math. There are not many Americans in Brazil with just a greencard anyway (in which it is illegal to actively protest their guest country.) Period. How many Americans want to move to Brazil? And he knows “some” who come here to protest?

Secondly, 98% of Americans don’t protest in America. Why would they illegally protest in their guest country? They come to Brazil to protest? While living and investing here? And he knows them? The chances of that are astronomically small. Like one in millions. (But he knows a dude who knows a dude who “cares”.)

And forget the math, look the history of Blue Sky attacking me. He’s been digging me for years that “I don’t care”. If he would have actually know his mythical American who only has a greencard in Brazil who “cares”, he would have played that card years ago. Why didn’t he? IMO is because he just made it up.

It’s a ruse that is so obvious that it insults intelligence.

AND, And, it wouldn’t mean anything even if it were true. Where’s the logic in it?

“Because I know a guy who knows a dude in Brazil who cares”, that means Rio doesn’t care”.

It’s a joke that is easily proved a joke.

Lola….. don’t backpedal.

You just might get a few pesos for that slum shanty Lola.