Isn’t a train…
if anyone noticed my lack of posts… we’ll then i’m flattered i was missed… some might not have known what they were enjoy’n (me MIA) 🙂
just been going full out sold one of my shopping centers (should close friday) sold it 2x in 2 weeks… had one deal not work and had a back-up deal… which was better
still not finished with my condos/lofts but getting thru city council monday final reading helped alot… should close on my new construction loan next friday…
refi’d another shopping center should close within 4-5 days… value came in 500k better than even i hoped… this is a good thing…
then refi’n my office building i hope in the next 2 weeks…
think I’ve posted before about the tax credits (investment tax credits) many old building rehabs can get… and there are special zones and historic issues that add to this… but eye’n this…. it was time to sell something and to lessen my summer grass cutting chore…
just a note for those who might be thinking of selling, 2008 offers some capital gains tax breaks that are good for only 2008 this is for selling something you have held long term… not sure what the term is but seems like 5 yrs but could be the standard 366 days…
if i can finish up alot of stuff in the next 3-4 months I’ll have made it past the storm and into the light… not to say I’m not have’n fun but it’ll be a different fun…
thanks to the few that have emailed and asked.. I’ll work on some pictures
p
Replies
i wish you would gat of your az and do something,you can't lay around napping all day ya know!
sounds like crazy ,fun times, but thtas what its all about.
so i may be missing something what are the special deals on cap gains in 08? i think the max rate is 15% fedral but not sure,does that go away or something?larry
if a man speaks in the forest,and there's not a woman to hear him,is he still wrong?
I hate paperwork... and banks like paperwork... p&l's, expense & income reports, rent rolls, leases... ect... ect... ect... not count'n all the personal stuff... I'm very lucky that i have one guy who helps me that i'd be lost without...
i think if you can control your income (keep it down) which i do well at... you can get down to zero cap gains for married on long term holdings in 2008 with a max income of 64k.. i think thats right... then it goes to 5% then on up depending on income level... but it is for 2008 only...
p
If Clinton or Obama become POTUS, the first tax increase is going to target long term capital gains taxes...15% will only be a memory of the good old days. Future minimum is somewhere north of 20% and maybe closer to 25%.
That will be very, very bad for America. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Caught an interview with Oboma on CNBC, He was talking upto 28%.
He gives a good speech but in interview he didn't come off as well.
I can only imagine how high taxes will go to pay for unversal health
care, scarey.
I'm hoping the pubs will force the debate into the open once the nomination process is settled. So far, both Obama and Hillary are talking about dreamy projects without giving hard evidence of how it will be paid for. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
That will be very, very bad for America.
Why is it bad for America when the guy banging nails all day pays at a higher tax rate than the guy who just sells some stock from his trust fund or the guy who bought a million dollar house on Nantucket and sold it for ten million? Why do we tax earned income higher than unearned income?
Edited 4/4/2008 10:27 am ET by smslaw
"Why is it bad for America when the guy banging nails all day pays at a higher tax rate than the guy who just sells some stock from his trust fund or the guy who bought a million dollar house on Nantucket and sold it for ten million?"Thats one way to phrase it and to think about it. I'm no zillionaire by any stretch of the imagination. I just sold some investment property and had to pay capital gains on it. If the rates were as high as some are talking, I would not have been able to afford to sell it. I might have been forced to hold onto it and it's quite possible that it would have foreclosed. Yes, the capital gains increase will cause additional foreclosures! When you strip the money out of the hands of the people using it for investment purposes, you also dampen the amount of money available for workers to earn livings by doing the projects. You also encourage money to flow out of the states. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Why risk my money?
If I lose, it's gone.
If I win, I have to split with Uncle?
Why take the risk at all?
Joe H
Because the guy banging nails all day, like I did for years, has the opportunity to invest some of his hard earned dollars and accumulate a small income from capital gains. Thinking long term, the little guy can get somewhat ahead, given time and considerable effort while short sighted thinking and an attitude of getting even with the super wealthy benefits neither. The super wealthy will still be "super wealthy" and the little guy will still be little except those higher capital gains taxes will effect him/her more.
I assume most of the people posting here who owe capital gains taxes worked pretty hard to accumulate some assets. But most of the dollars subject to capital gains taxation belong to people with far more serious money. My point is that the guy banging nails works just as hard as the investor. But the former pays a much higher tax rate than the latter.
Most people are never able to save enough to invest and accumulate any capital gains. Those who are able to save for retirement end up paying ordinary income rates when they cash out from 401k or IRA accounts.
I'd rather see the working stiffs pay a lower rate on earned income and the rich folks pay the same rate on unearned income.
If you go to Las Vegas, bet on red and win, you owe income tax at ordinary income rates. If you bet on subprime mortgages and win, your winnings are capital gains. If you lose, the Fed will bail you out.
Can't disagree with your stance, however I think if any of the "working stiffs" should get to the point in their lives where they're fortunate enough to owe capital gains tax, then it's sufficient that they only pay 15%. Those who tout high capital gains taxes don't seem to understand is that they're also putting up a barrier to their own financial potential. What baffles me is the talking heads in Washington bemoan the fact that Americans (people residing in the US) have such low savings rates but then place taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains. Aren't they discouraging investment and placing in jeopardy the financial soundness of the citizenry and the country as a whole?This bail out of Bear Stearns is, in my opinion, totally wrong since financial strength of our system lies partly in taking a risk and reaping the reward for that risk. When they use tax dollars to provide a safety net, they waste not only the peoples treasure but chip away at the very concept of risk/reward in investing.
Just to be clear Bear Stearns was not bailed out.The investers in (not WITH) Bear Stearns lost a bundle..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
I am Laughing out loud and cant argue your point on this one.
The only come back is that it was not POTUS it was the feds.
We will never know what goes on under the sheets (behind closed doors) so your guess is as good as mine if the admin got involved.
The problem is if you are going to up the anty on all investment income then every investor gets hurt. And many investors still work 5 days a week and bring down a good income probably taxed at the higher rates.
Please keep in mind smslaw
The guy selling the long term investment made the investment with money that he probably already paid 10% more tax on to the government than the guy banging nails. (Assuming 28% to the average guy and 38% to the higher tax bracket guys (and girls, naturally))
I hit both brackets depending on the year I am having and I will tell you that if the long term cap gains tax goes way up, I won't be investing in long term investments and will send my money into the stock market in different tax defered investments since they will be better for me at that time.
By the way, my long term investments tend to provide work for all my trade contractor partners and keep the money running around in the local market place. (my home town, etc) including the guy who is swinging the hammer (be it the trim carpenter, framer, or me depending on the investment)
So, if the tax rules change, the guy swinging the hammer might be collecting unemployment or having to sell coffee at the Wawa
I am sure there are other ways to look at it but that is the view from here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120735854234491599.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Obama's Capital LossApril 5, 2008; Page A8
Barack Obama recently released his tax records, and it was notable how little he and his wife appear to invest in the stock market. That may explain the Senator's odd belief that a significant hike in the capital gains tax rate won't matter to shareholders or harm the economy.
Or so Mr. Obama's replied to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo when she asked how much he'd increase the cap-gains tax, something he's said is necessary to restore "fairness" to the tax code. Thanks to the 2003 tax cuts, the top rate is currently 15%.
"When I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what's – how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25%, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making," he said. He concluded that a higher rate would boost federal receipts, which would allow the government to redistribute "relief to middle class and working class families."
With apologies to economists Buffett and Obama, the history of this tax isn't on their side. The capital gains rate is crucial to investment decisions; higher rates make capital more expensive, dampening incentives to invest and reducing economic growth. John F. Kennedy understood this, as he proposed a capital gains tax cut. Bill Clinton joined with Republicans in 1997 to sign legislation lowering the rate to 20% from 28%.
Critics howled this would reduce tax revenues, and they howled when Republicans cut the rate to 15% in 2003. What followed in both cases was an enormous "unlocking" effect, as investors sold more stock and assets to take advantage of the lower rate. Capital gains realizations soared to an estimated $729 billion in 2006 from $269 billion in 2002. This goosed Treasury receipts from capital gains, to an estimated $110 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.
Mr. Obama doesn't have to guess what sort of "distortion" would come from significantly raising the cap-gains rate. In 1986, the tax rate jumped to 28% from 20%, a 40% increase. Tax revenues spiked briefly in anticipation of the hike (as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate), then dropped precipitously. Four years later, in 1990, the federal government was still taking in 13% less revenue at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 at the 20% rate.
As for Mr. Obama's implication that capital gains remain the privilege of the wealthy well, that's yesterday. In recent decades, the U.S. has become a shareholder society, and average Americans increasingly rely on investment income to save for retirement or even to pay bills.
In 2005, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, 8.5 million households paid taxes on capital gains. A hefty 47% of those tax filers reported income of less than $50,000, while 79% had income under $100,000. Keep in mind that capital gains themselves count as income and often are a one-time windfall from the sale of a small business or long-held stock. These working families would suffer a double whammy, both with a higher tax rate and lower stock prices – because financial markets factor higher taxes on stock profits into lower stock valuations.
With the economy weak, this is an especially poor time to be talking up tax hikes. A higher rate, and its devaluing of U.S. assets, would hammer U.S. competitiveness, making it harder to attract global capital. America is increasingly isolated in taxing capital gains. Many industrialized competitors publicize a lower rate, and many (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand) have no levy at all.
If Mr. Obama really wants to lift the economy – and those middle-class American shareholders – he'd advocate cutting the rate, or indexing it to inflation so investors aren't taxed on phantom gains. That would violate the Democratic left's faith that tax rates don't matter to growth and that raising taxes on capital and "the rich" is good politics. We doubt members of America's politically astute investor class agree.
Nice link JoeH. The tax issue might drive my vote back to the Pubs away from Obama. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
joe, there pandering to the millions of voters that dont pay or invest anything, It makes me furious these people want to raise capital gains taxes, Im the one that went without and took a risk yet they have a say through Obama, . Thats why i think only property holders or taxPAYERs should be able to vote.
Right at the levels Reagan had them at.
Regan is dead and last time I looked, he's not running for POTUS.
"If Clinton or Obama become POTUS, the first tax increase is going to target long term capital gains taxes...15% will only be a memory of the good old days. Future minimum is somewhere north of 20% and maybe closer to 25%."{sarcasm}Yeah, nothing like a big tax increase to get the economy going again. Last time Dems tried that was in the '30s when FDR raised the top income tax bracket to 93%. Worked like a charm. And I suppose that looming tax increase in '09 won't make people sell their stocks in '08 ahead of the deadline...{/sarcasm}
Yeah, nothing like a big tax increase to get the economy going again. Last time Dems tried that was in the '30s
I think the last time was during the first Clinton administration. Times were sure tough, what with a budget surplus, low inflation, low unemployment and high stock market.
Let's keep doing what W did. Cut taxes, start a war and borrow the $$ for it from our friends in China, forget about balancing the budget, etc. Yup, times are really good right now.
Hell I didn't think I had access to the tavern!
Congratulations!
DougU receives the much coveted
MrT/brownbagg OneLiner Award.
Saaalute!View Image View Image
Click here for access to the Woodshed Tavern
Thanks for the award, I'll cherish it forever but now I gotta get out of this thread.
Hows that ignore function work again!
be dont want to hear this polyjive bs anymore.
ya, amazing how quick it can all turn to sh!t.
Click here for access to the Woodshed Tavern
You actually believe that raising taxes on working people will help the economy? Tell us how that works - it should be interesting to read.
You actually believe that raising taxes on working people will help the economy? Tell us how that works - it should be interesting to read.
I would raise taxes on non-working people. Why should Paris Hilton pay a lower rate on her investments than you do on your salary?
How about a compromise? Eliminate capital gains taxes on the first 300K of gains per year and tax gains above that level as ordinary income? Then a carpenter who owns a few houses he's fixed up gets to keep his money.
"I would raise taxes on non-working people. Why should Paris Hilton pay a lower rate on her investments than you do on your salary?How about a compromise? Eliminate capital gains taxes on the first 300K of gains per year and tax gains above that level as ordinary income? Then a carpenter who owns a few houses he's fixed up gets to keep his money."OK, so what if the carpenter does a few more houses and he's looking at his taxes suddenly jumping from 15% to 39%. Why would he bother with say the last 2-3 houses since every penny he earned would go directly to Uncle Sam in the form of higher taxes? He would be better off financially not doing those houses and just taking the rest of the year off.You plan is noble-sounding, but the real effects might be quite different. It would penalize successful people for being good at what they do for a living.
OK, so what if the carpenter does a few more houses and he's looking at his taxes suddenly jumping from 15% to 39%. Why would he bother with say the last 2-3 houses since every penny he earned would go directly to Uncle Sam in the form of higher taxes? He would be better off financially not doing those houses and just taking the rest of the year off.
I don't know anyone who ever stopped working because he reached a higher tax bracket. I know I don't stop working and I suspect you don't either. A taxpayer reaches the highest bracket at about 350K, so no one will be needing to hold a telethon for our hypothetical carpenter. The year I make 350K, I'll be happy to pay the taxes I owe.
View Image
View Image
I'm as interested in raising enough revenue to pay for what the government spends than I am in how we get there.
The problem is that just raising taxes does not increase collections.
In a static economy it would, but we know that the economy is
growing. The immeadiate reaction when you raise prices or taxes
is to stop buying or find a way to not pay taxes. If you wait to 2012 with the present economy and tax rate, the actual effect of tax decreases will be felt.
This is the year when al things being equal, the budget will balence.
They've been raising taxes and fees in MI for years now. Everyone's moving out. When they start raising them in the USA, they move to other countries. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
but we know that the economy is growing.
You must have some secret inside info, because it doesn't look like it from where I sit.
There may be an optimum level of taxes between 0% and 100%, but no one knows what the level is. Theoretically if taxes approach 100%, everyone stops working. If they approach 0%, the government has no revenue to fund anything. It does not necessarily follow that cutting marginal tax rates increases revenue or that raising taxes decreases revenue. I think we kid ourselves if we really think that changing a marginal tax rate by a few % will make us work harder or less hard.
Taxes were cut substantially early in the first Bush administration. Here we are, seven years later, and the budget deficit is huge. We've added something like 4 trillion dollars to the total debt in that period.
No matter who is president, the deficits will continue until some fiscal discipline is imposed.
I'm not in favor of the government raising more money, but of limiting spending. Do we really need to subsidize corn farmers? Do we need a military that is still fighting the Cold War by building advanced weapons sytems and high tech planes and ships?
during GWB first administration, right after Clinton left office we had a small recession. Some economists state that it started during the last
quarter of his administration. On top of that Sept 11, happened.
This was all during the first year and half. People on the left always
say that we had a balenced budget, forgeting that the last Clinton budget was not balenced.
Wehave had an unbalenced buget since then. 4 trillion in absolute
terms is large, now compare it to a % of gdp. It becomes manageable.
Unfortuneatly since that time we have had a rep. and dem congress who are unable to cut spending.
The admin. budget office as well as cong. budget office have both showed that we have a chance at a balenced budget by 2012.
Hopefully, we can elect people who will resist new spending. I have very little hope.
I believe that the main business of gov. is to protect us. Social programs should remain at the state level.
Remember, the top 5% of taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes now.
How much more should they pay?
I think there needs to be adjustments, One area is hedge funds and
how their profits are taxed. This will be hard to do as this is where the
dem. raise a lot of their money.
Boortz said it right today: if the Libertarians would agree to fight the Islamic terrorists he'd vote for them at the expense of the Pubs and hope that the Pubs would just disappear. They are no different than the Dems in their spending habits. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"There may be an optimum level of taxes between 0% and 100%, but no one knows what the level is. "A bunch of damn farmers started a war 232 years ago in outrage over a piddly 5% tax levied on them by the King of England. Eight generations later, the descendants of those farmers live under a system that demands anywhere from 20% to 60% for the government's coffers. Some even claim we pay too little in taxes and want them raised higher.The word "gelding" comes to mind to describe our present society and most adult's attitude towards the powers that be...
""A bunch of damn farmers started a war 232 years ago in outrage over a piddly 5% tax levied on them by the King of England."' Ok how about some context. First off 5% was not the only % , it was the additional amount being asked of the farmers (and shop keepers, tradepersons, manufacturers, shippers, fisherman etc) Those farmers were quartering troops, had zero social services, no govt. paid for roads, airports, trains, no means to defend themselves unless allowed by the King. The then local crop of terrorists were taking a far greater toll percentage wise of the population then they have ever done since then. No or very limited medical facilities, same for schools, No Navy , AirForce, Coast Guard, no govt. subsidies to farmers, No Space Programs, No govt aid in times of disaster, No govt. funded electrical generation etc. etc etc. And to top it off no say in how the tax would be spent. Yep , good analogy to these times we now live in.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
"Ok how about some context. First off 5% was not the only %"Funny how we now see a 5% tax burden as abnormal, something from a distant past. Your laundry list of government "services" sure is a long one. Hmm, I wonder how the list got that long? Do you really believe all of those services are necessary? Most of them didn't exist before 1940 but somehow the country got along quite well.Context? If you really want context, picture that proverbial frog in the pot of water on the stove. The poor thing was chilly, but now it's feeling a warm glow from all the "services" his master is giving him -- nice and warm, balmy, things can only get better!I'm sure we'll get some kind of "universal" health care next year, and it will only cost 6% to 10% of our incomes (according to HRC's numbers). Yeah, and W's awful tax cuts are going away too - the pot is starting to simmer pretty good now...
""Hmm, I wonder how the list got that long?"" The electorate voted for it, either directly or indirectly. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. The tax rate under English control of the colonies was actually quite high. Minor detail called tariffs. Might read some history .
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
"The tax rate under English control of the colonies was actually quite high. Minor detail called tariffs."LOL Yes indeed, rates high enough to start a revolution. After the war the colonies had tax burdens under 5% for most citizens. When the federal government got out of line people often got out their guns -- look up "Whiskey Rebellion" in that history book of yours.You can rationalize big, overbearing, government all you like. In all of history no nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity. The United States is now the world's largest debtor, and each year we mortgage another 5% of our wealth to foreigners. I originally asked how raising taxes on working people will help improve the economy. Replies like "I won't bother answering the rest of your post" tell me all I need to know about the state of this union. Enjoy your government services and handouts citizen. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Sorry , I was replying only to your post about the bunch of damn farmers starting a rebellion when their tax rate was 5%. Just correcting incorrect statements is all. The whiskey rebellion wasn't colonists it was citizens. BTW what did happen that tax in the aftermath of the rebellion?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
"BTW what did happen that tax in the aftermath of the rebellion? "
The site of the Whiskey Rebelion is just down the road from the Home Depot that I go to, a mile or two from my house. George Washington quelled that rebelion in short order and, last I checked, we still have both taxes and Whiskey in this neck o' the woods.
;-)
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
<G> My memory of the aftermath as well. Had to chuckle at the thread that had a post from Appalachia in another thread about the conversion of corn to whiskey because the transportation of the finished product was easier. Right reason , wrong time and location.(Appalachia vs. New York) While I am not in favor of higher taxes as a general statement, I do tend to look at my surroundings ans ask myself just what do I want to do without , or ask my neighbors to do without before I start ranting on how high taxes are.
Cops, firefighters, schools, roads, airports, military, hospitals, dams, levees, harbors, trains, social services, the list goes on and on and for the most part when I look at the llist while there are things I don't need others do. I try to temper my rebellious nature by seeing what I use/need that they may not.
Still and all it does in the end come down to the voters of this country and no one else when it comes to responsibility for the taxes we pay. I am wrong in this post, further reading on my part does indeed show that the basis of the whiskey rebellion was in Appalachia. My apologize. Can't trust a 50 year old memory.
Edited 4/10/2008 4:14 pm by dovetail97128
Quote: "While I am not in favor of higher taxes as a general statement, I do tend to look at my surroundings ans ask myself just what do I want to do without , or ask my neighbors to do without before I start ranting on how high taxes are.Cops, firefighters, schools, roads, airports, military, hospitals, dams, levees, harbors, trains, social services, the list goes on and on and for the most part when I look at the llist while there are things I don't need others do."
These are all well and good but what gets me is that most of the items on your list are not done efficiently or well. Within 30 miles of my home I know of $400,000 of concrete plaza work that was speced with no reinforcement for the sole reason that it will deteriorate and they can justify tearing it out in 3-5 years and replace it with something nicer (but had to spend the budget to protect next years funding), and two buildings worth millions each that THREE years after being built cannot be used because of shoddy workmanship. The bonding company is rehabbing one of the NEW buildings and the other will be torn down. All three of these projects were government projects. Multiply this by the thousands of government projects across the country and these three are mere grains of sand in the desert of WASTE AND FRAUD.
GregT
Please do not twist my attitude about paying taxes into something it is not. I have no love of government waste, fraud or outright theft. Thank You
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I didn't intend to twist your attitude about paying taxes. My apologies. I read where you were thinking that there are not too many things that you or your neighbors would like to do without. I just intended to express that we wouldn't have to do without anything AND taxes could be lower if government had the same consequences that you and I have when we are wasteful or fraudulent. I guess I went off because of so many times that I hear people around me praising government work while degrading private sector work when virtually no model of governmental behavior works in the real world without the unlimited income and virtual lack of accountability that government has.
Thanks for your reply.
GregT
No problem. I am always bothered by govt. waste, but am also bothered by the fact that I ( and every other eligible voter) are a part of the problem when We don't get out and vote against those who perpetuate that system. We are ultimately the govt. so can only blame ourselves and our lack of enforcing common sense among those we elect.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I can be accused of having lost hope on this subject. What gets me though is that as far as waste goes it doesn't matter who we elect. They will not do anything about it. If a politician says they want to limit government revenue (i.e. smaller size), they will just borrow more $ to throw down the toilet. I guess I should be happy though that after 60 cents of the dollar gets eaten up in inefficiencies (or whatever the number is) the other 40 cents gets spent in our economy.
The ENTIRE $1 gets spent in the economy. That is one of the big problems. Even waste, fraud, mis-management, whatever is still SOMEONE'S income. It still impacts the economy. That is one of the reasons it is so difficult to bring prices down on things like health care. Someone has a stake in everyone of those dollars that gets spent. So why would they want to reduce the amount of money spent on health care (or defense or whatever)?
Certainly some gov't projects are wasteful (we have one of those tear down buildings here - a health clinic!), but I guarantee you that the same thing happens with private companies. Any organization that has a specified "budget" cycle encounters the "use it or lose it" phenomenon. That is one reason I think that budgets should be done on a rolling basis with overlaps (say an 18 month budget done every 9 months). I'm sure that long term projects are costing more than they need to because funding cannot be ensured for more than one year at a time.With the gov't it is at least somewhat transparent. Private companies get to hide their waste.
Sometimes I wish it wasn't transparent. It's too depressing. But the projects I speak of aren't transparent and are not known by the general public in my area. They are projects that my company is/was being paid to work on. Otherwise I would be ignorant of them.
I have to think about your rolling budget idea. It may be too logical and efficient to be accepted by bureaucracies. But these projects that I know of were fixed contract design and fixed contract construction, not a victim of multi-year budgeting failures.
I don't buy any comparison of private sector and government. If any private company was as poorly managed as our government it would fail to exist. Private companies couldn't build very many multimillion dollar buildings that get torn down before even being able to be used before Investors would pull the plug. We have no choice with government waste. Bend over and take it.
Fixed price may still have the same problems (I'm not saying that the ones you worked on did, just that it is possible). Did the work need to be done? Could multiple items have been brought together to do the total for less? These are the types of problems that can appear when there is an assumption of a budget (and money) that exists for a single definite time period, that might get a better look under a different process.Private companies go bust everyday, and new private companies come along and repeat the same failures. We notice the government failures because we know the government is not going away. Of course I have no way to show it, but I'd bet that the entirety of the private sector is not that much more efficient than the government, once you take into account all of the failures, rip-offs, etc. There are huge amounts of waste (in the sense of money being spent for something that generates nothing) going on in private companies. No one says anything about it, they just call it "market forces". If it works so well, why do we keep developing "crisis" like the savings and loan, or sub-prime mortgages, or those hedge funds? Shouldn't the market forces have eliminated them after the first couple of hundred years? Yet we have them over and over and over.After all, those "knock down" buildings were built by the private sector I bet. Few governments have their own building departments.This is why I think there should be some other measures of economic activity. Like a measure of FINAL goods and services. And a measure that translates everything into a service, because no one buys goods just to buy goods, they buy them for what they will DO for you.But there is competition in the private sector. That is the only thing that puts any stress on the companies to be efficient.
"BTW what did happen that tax in the aftermath of the rebellion?"Good ol' George Washington personally commanded a brigade that marched in and ended the rebellion. The established tax on wheat & rye whiskey raised prices, so people in TN and KY started making bourbon and moonshine from corn mash. They weren't states yet and the moonshiners could undercut prices on taxed booze and their business boomed. Two hundred years later the feds were still battling the moonshiners over taxes! For some people the rebellion never ended.
i was reading a book about the revolutionary war in NJ{ bergen county} as GW went to a lot of spots near where i lived and theres a lot of history there, I was surprised that there were so many people loyal to the British then
I have loved history since I was a kid. New Jersey has a lot of it that is fascinating.
And yes , what we think of as an overwhelming backing for the revolution was in fact not all that overwhelming at all.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
My brother lives in Oakland NJ, I asked him why does he have a brick outhouse with a slate roof in his yard, He laughed and said no thats no outhouse its the original powder house from the factory for GWs army where they were making the shells and bullets?? I told him if that was in Oregon it would be the oldest building and a State treasure. Meanwhile the lawnmower is safe from redcoats;}
Your brother probably hides the mower in there to keep it from being seen ans taxed. Sounds like a great piece of history to be having one's backyard though.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Non-universal health care costs us 13% of our income, so if we can get universal for 10%, I'm all for it!
My mom just told me she found an old hospital bill from when she delivered me. She spent four days in the hospital and they billed her for $13 and some change. I don't think any of that was covered by health insurance. The next time I talk to her, I'll ask. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Thanks for sharing , its a hoot.
My older brothers were born in one room cabins . A trappers shack in the winter. I was born in a hospital but Ill never know how much I cost .
Tim
Blue, receipt for my oldest, 37 (I think) born at Hoag Hosp in Newport Bch CA was $300 cash in advance.
Got a refund of $3 when they left, 2 days IIRC.
Little paper receipt like you used to buy a book of 50 of at the dime store, about 3" x 5".
I think the doc bill was about the same.
Joe H
"Non-universal health care costs us 13% of our income, so if we can get universal for 10%, I'm all for it!"Well, if they run it like social security/medicare as payroll deductions, 10% will come from the workers and 10% will come from employers. 10+10 = 20%. And just think, for the extra 7% we'll get to sign up on wait lists for major procedures and operations. That's how it works in the UK and Canada. Everyone is covered, but some of the buggers up and die before they get to the head of the line. Too bad, so sad.
why is it democrats never sound happy?
Looks like their choices are Hillary or Obama.
How happy would you be ?
Joe H
why is it democrats never sound happy?
We aren't happy, because we're jealous that the Republicans have been able to convince working people that they have more in common with billionaires than with each other and thus they vote for the guy who says he'll reduce their taxes, while spending their childrens' money and sending their children to war.
The issue of low taxes is a fraud. Bush didn't cut taxes, he deferred them to my kid and yours.
If a politician says he'll cut spending and is specific about the cuts, I give him/her credit for being honest and a real conservative. I may not agree with the specific cuts, but I agree with the idea that we should have a national consensus about what we want the government to spend and once we agree on that, we should recognize that we need to raise the revenue to pay for it.
I wonder if those who support the war in Iraq would still support it if every paycheck had a war surtax.
Looks like the Dems are the billionaires party.
George Soros and a dozen others fund dozens of Dem front groups to push the Liberal agenda.
The issue of low taxes is a fraud. Bush didn't cut taxes, he deferred them to my kid and yours
Hillary & Obama are promising to undeferr your taxes, but there'll be plenty left for your kids too.
Joe H
but I agree with the idea that we should have a national consensus about what we want the government to spend and once we agree on that, we should recognize that we need to raise the revenue to pay for it.
Last i heard that was called elections...?
how is that the united states in less than 300yrs created an economy, a state, a government, and a country that none in the world has been able to do with sometimes thousands more years to do it?
Because people were allowed to fail... every working person has a chance to be a billionaire... every person can run for political office, and every person can have input... to convince them otherwise would be wrong... in real dollars every dollar earned is already taxed at over 50%...
it's easy to place blame and to want to seize something you didn't earn and find some way to think you can stake a right to it... but when free men are given control over their future we all prosper even when the dream fails...
the most prosperous people i know work alot harder and longer than... most... who are content with working 40 hours and having a constant secure paycheck (provided by the efforts of those who chose to go without and work harder and longer)
I know many people who have been broke many times by failed business and economic situations either outside their control or situations that were out of control... but i never head any of them moan, groan or complain that anyone was to blame... all i know took it as a life lesson and kept on going either to fail or not again... being allowed to fail is this nations greatest gift
Putting your future in the hands of another has always held a risk.. it's a balancing act... for take'n the reward based on the risk of others you put yourself at the risk of their failure, bad planning, or greed,
since i have never understood the feeling that anyone owes me anything (except those that do) it's hard for me to expect anything i didn't earn and once i do earn it based on my hard work and risk... forgive me for feeling a little pizzed about being forced to share it with those that were just as able that didn't take the risk or put in the work...
watching the final 4 games last night I felt nothing but pride even awe for the Memphis team, the coach and the students... but even living here and being a fan I don't say "we won" because i had zero to do with them winning, i'm not part of the team, i don't play and i don't coach, i don't even attend the games... I just happen to live in the same city... happy and proud yes... but i know they are the ones who worked for it... it's their victory
I wonder if those who support the war in Iraq would still support it if every paycheck had a war surtax.
In that very thought how many actions and programs would you support if you got to check off which you choose to fund... I doubt there would be many weeks you'd choose to fund much at all... give us all a line item veto and i'm sure many things provided that you hold dear would not be there... you need a better arguement than that
facing 6 figure taxes at times I ask my cpa "what can we do" "pay it" is usually the answer... I feel blessed when through hard work and being creative I'm allowed to do what i do.... but there MUST be the chance of reward at the end of the tunnel for me to risk my families future... take away that chance of reward and you take away my willingness to take those risks... the very risks that provide JOBS, and increase the local tax base FOREVER... go ahead... take away the chance for reward even for a short time and it affects economies forever... lost chances are... lost
I'm always happy
p
Edited 4/6/2008 7:56 pm ET by ponytl
Ponytl
I usually avoid these discussions like the plague but your post is perhaps the most well written thoughtful argument I have read on this forum. I agree with every single word in your post!
I used to have a completely different view on taxes and all things associated with them, I've had a change of heart in the past few years after watching how some of our/my money gets spent.
And go Memphis!
Doug
Great post.Remodeling Contractor just on the other side of the Glass City
but I agree with the idea that we should have a national consensus about what we want the government to spend and once we agree on that, we should recognize that we need to raise the revenue to pay for it.
Last i heard that was called elections...?
You seem to be ignoring my point, which is that we should not run perpetual deficits and leave the debt to future generations. We elect politicians who won't make the hard choice because we like it when they simultaneously lower our taxes (more money in my pocket and yours) and increase spending (Oh boy, my rebate check is coming!)
Your post would then argue for spending cuts not higher taxes.
The gov. has enough of our money, maybe it is time for actual cuts
in spending instead of pretend cuts in the growth of programs.
NYS gov. just bragged how now all children in the state will have
free heath ins., free at the cost of people who actually pay taxes.
Our state gov. is so screwed up. You can make $80000/yr, and have
the taxpayers pay for your kids medical bills.
Your post would then argue for spending cuts not higher taxes.
The gov. has enough of our money, maybe it is time for actual cuts
in spending instead of pretend cuts in the growth of programs.
Right. The problem is spending cuts are hard and someone is always unhappy when it happens.
I never claimed to understand economics on a national or world scale.. i'm not sure you could find two economist that agree line for line...
"spending our childrens future" is too much of a catch phrase for me... and there are way too many forces at work for me to have even the slightest grasp of it... So often news is made by the news people who have even less of an understanding of the forces at work... follow blindly? no but when so much is connected in ways so few can understand.... grasping the concept and understanding the outcome are not the same...
bluntly I have no clue if perpetual deficits are a good or bad thing... and i've thought about it... even tried to read books on world economics... when you read the same page 4-5 times and still don't have a clue what it said or what the writer was for or against... it's time to find another book or worry about something different...
I choose the latter not that i was ever worried about it... just interested.. figured i'd rather know how to run base well...
btw... i'm looking forward to my rebate check... i want to stimulate something with it
p
Edited 4/6/2008 7:55 pm ET by ponytl
Id bet you are not willing to talk this much in person.
I always had you figgured as quiet.
Im glad you open up here.
Tim
"i'm not sure you could find two economist that agree line for line..."
I once heard an economist say:
"If you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion"
(-:
Nice to see ya posting again. The memories of the fest at your loft will be with me for a heck of a long time - Carl and I still talk about that from time to time.
Ax me about Ebonics.
Yea , I was gonna say somthin but I aint followin you .
Congradulations on a great post and the memphis win.
What I was thinkin before I read that post of yours was that just because we pay capitol gains taxes doesnt make us rich. But I guess you said that too.
Ok mebbe you didnt say this ;
We had a choice like everyone else . The goverment offered the breaks to stimulate the economy best I remember because business is supposed to drive the economy car. Mich had a choice to work for 1/2 the labor rate and build cars , then see what happens then. Might make more if we make more selling them. But they said no they wouldnt work for 12 bucks an hour . They chose to lose their houses and go broke . The business folded and they cant get a job because no one is driving the ecomomy car in that state anymore .
Im happy either way . Ill just do it differently when I see the holes in it . The gov cant do nothin without screwin up worse . Theres adavantages to every disadvantage . You just need to be the guy on the right side of the ball when its snapped.
It has nothing to do with sarcasm, left or right. It's simply a restatement of fact, both Hillary and Obama have clearly voiced their intentions regarding long term capital gains in conferences and recent speeches. Some economists would argue that with the economy in the shape it is, the worst thing they can do is decide to raise taxes now. Economists would also argue that raising the marginal tax rate from 25% to 80% during FDR's reign helped cement the depression by withdrawing incentive for wealthy to invest in new business and jobs, forestalling the recovery of the economy. Reality is likely closer to the fact that the Federal Reserve failed in both it's policies and reaction to fall in the stock market and it's lack of regulation. FDR was successful in the end by instituting more regulation into the system by forming both the FDIC and SEC as well as the SS system, all of which brought confidence back in the "working man." More then anything, the WWII came along and revitalized the whole thing to the extent that it carried on into the 21st century. In the end, tax rates did little to revive the economy but the war sure brought things back to life. Nothing like a little war to bring things around.
Heard Bob Binker on the radio show yesterday.He was talking about what would happen to entrepreneurs with some of the discussed tax changes and/or allowing the tax cuts to expire.With raiseing the top income tax rate (IIRC from 36 to 39.5) and removing the cap from SE taxes.And in state income taxes, he was talking about CA, and the top rate can be almost 65%..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
"
Isn't a train...
if anyone noticed my lack of posts... we'll then i'm flattered i was missed... some might not have known what they were enjoy'n (me MIA) :)
just been going full out sold one of my shopping centers (should close friday) sold it 2x in 2 weeks... had one deal not work and had a back-up deal... which was better
still not finished with my condos/lofts but getting thru city council monday final reading helped alot... should close on my new construction loan next friday...
refi'd another shopping center should close within 4-5 days... value came in 500k better than even i hoped... this is a good thing...
then refi'n my office building i hope in the next 2 weeks...
think I've posted before about the tax credits (investment tax credits) many old building rehabs can get... and there are special zones and historic issues that add to this... but eye'n this.... it was time to sell something and to lessen my summer grass cutting chore...
just a note for those who might be thinking of selling, 2008 offers some capital gains tax breaks that are good for only 2008 this is for selling something you have held long term... not sure what the term is but seems like 5 yrs but could be the standard 366 days...
if i can finish up alot of stuff in the next 3-4 months I'll have made it past the storm and into the light... not to say I'm not have'n fun but it'll be a different fun..."
Does that mean you are going to sell some more stuff?
Thats for the thread. Im going to the accountant today . Im planning on selling some rentals along with some other stuff this year . Im going to ask him about it .
Tim