Market Currents
The next economic boom, writes Daniel Gross, will be created by the efficiencies unleashed by...
-
Saturday, May 5, 2012, 11:40 AM ETThe next economic boom, writes Daniel Gross, will be created by the efficiencies unleashed by America's transition from an Ownership Society to a Rentership Society. It's not just housing - citizens are getting used to the flexibility of renting across a whole range of goods. "The U.S. economy needs the dynamism that renting enables as much as - if not more than - it needs the stability that ownership engenders."
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 178 comments:
Ownership means freedom, stability, and safety, except to socialists. They don't want you to own anything because then you are dependent and under control.
It's already starting. Why do you think Romney et al. are pushing to do away with the mortgage tax deduction instead of the special tax break on dividends? Answer: because the mortgage deduction mainly benefits the middle class and the tax break on dividends mainly benefits the wealthiest.
You clearly got an extra dose of the kool aid,
poor kid!
By the way, well said SanDiego.
Romney doesn't cares about the middle class. He would increase taxes on the poor and cut taxes to the rich.
Our Galtian Overlords would be happy....
This administration is all about the "COLLECTIVE" as in "Collective Salvation" and "Social Justice."
This great country was formed with the individual in mind,
just why do we think we split the motherland for anyway?
It is the hope and dream of a better life.
A better tomorrow.
An opportunity to be what "WE" want to be without the bothersome hand of a "Big Brother Nanny State" constantly in our business and trying to "NUDGE" us into what big brother(Cass Sunstein) thinks is best!
This country, our REPUBLIC, was founded on the " LAW'S of GOD", today we are arrogantly trying to replace all that has worked for the better part of 200 years with some perverted notion of "The Law Of Man" and is at the heart of the progressive nightmare we find ourselves trapped in today!
Reminds me of a great old Todd tune called "Trapped"
"Now if you don't have the stomach for all this radical crap, have the guts to stand for something, or you gonna be trapped", great tune...
So property taxes, insurance, interest, repairs, real estate agent fees, etc. aren't pissing away money?
Renting vs. owning is like any other comparison. It is best to do the one that costs less. In most areas that is now owning, but neither is automatically better.
The apartment I live in would cost ~2300/month to rent, but my mortgage interest plus taxes plus condo fees are ~1500 a month. I have 150k tied up in the place in equity thus I get ~6.5% return on equity and I save money by deducting the property taxes and interest, saving me another $4k a year. Overall ROE is about 8%, better than the money will do in the stock market or invested in bonds. And this is with the assumption the price of my place never goes up, which won't be true forever.
For me, owning puts me ahead. For you it could be different, but it's rather simple math to figure out which is better. Renting is not pissing away money, putting a roof over your head will always cost something.
Are you serious? I hope you are young in age because you obviously have a lot to learn. With collective effort, each individual will prosper. With opportunity only for some, we grow apart and no one really wins. Of course those who fear change and hide in their homes all day and night will disagree with this.
You're actually arguing for progressive taxation here, though you probably don't realize it. For your aphorism to apply, we'd need to tax -- not the people who are poor -- but the ones who create poverty and who benefit from impoverishing others.
I read an interesting proposal for how to do this. The idea was to directly tax wealth disparity by setting the top marginal rate at a very high level but that marginal rate only applies to those making more than 5x (or 10x, or whatever) of the median income. The expected outcome from this is that the most empowered people in society (the wealthiest) would then be motivated to encourage opportunities for the rest of society to be more upwardly mobile and to raise the wealth of the nation, not just of a few people.
I think you are on to something with that thought of providing incentives for the one per center's to boost the economic opportunities of the bottom layer of society. In the mid 90's, companies without a majority of their employees enrolled in 401(k) plans were going to loose the ability to deduct contributions made on behalf of the upper management. Our company responded by making it mandatory for everyone to have a 401(k) by automatically (establishing a 401(k) for you if you didn't already have one) contributing, yearly, a percentage of your wages. You were eligible
after your first year of employment and the percentage was based on total years of employment with the company. I think this qualifies as a fine illustration of SanDiegoNonSurfer's idea of incentivizing the upper tier to aid the lower tiers.
That is exactly the problem. Politician's (from both parties) have become accustom to not being accountable to anyone. The media gets so caught up in the BS that it forgets that stealing is stealing, no matter Republican or Democrat. Violating the Constitution is violating the Constitution no matter Republican or Democrat. It seems no one, except a few farmers in the midwest has any morals or pride for America, our system of laws, and the Constitution that created one of the best places to live on this planet.
When people are not required to pay any taxes at all, and see those that do only as an endless source of their own nourishment, then, you're on the road to national destruction. We're presently at the pivot point.
I spent a career visiting places where the phony "welfare of the masses" was put at the pinnacle by a small super elite, and they proceeded to feed the entirety of the rest of society to the nonproducers until everybody was equally poor, except, of course, that super elite.
Sorry to correct the confused, but this is exactly the "dependency society" of the left, which only looks at larger government and greater dependency, and, of course, as at all those provided for as loyal voters.
Tytler and De Tocqueville had it right a long, long time ago.
Not even close. Renting is being subservient to someone else and it's not freedom. Some would also try to say paying a mortgage is being subservient to the bank, but that's not true. As long as you honor your obligation to pay, the bank has no say. Renters have to allow the owner to inspect the property, have to abide by a much more restrictive set of rules, and can for the most part be tossed out any time. Renters will also pay rent that is more than the cost of the property and the taxes on the property. In addition, the taxes are more because the rental represents income to the owner in addition to property taxes.
More importantly, you pay rent forever. With my home, at some point I do not have to pay anything. Yes, I will pay taxes, but not income taxes and the total taxes will be significantly lower than rent.
This whole idea of 'renting is better' is just to get ignorant youth to fall in line and be subservient to the ruling class. Heck, they figure you'll never even figure it out. After all it is kind of complicated.
Moreover, rents can decline if the local market conditions demand them..This may also be true for home, but usually less likely...
Both renters and homeowners pay someone, whether it is a landlord or a banklord.
And just be because your house has been paid in full, do not think that you are free of lost opportunities, as you may be done paying a mortgage, but you will be sitting on thousands of dollars in illiquid assets...
The fallacy of static thought. If the real world worked that way, would Buffet and Soros have lower tax rates than their secretaries? The "most empowered' would find other ways to protect their wealth, including moving citizenship to another country. Static thought only works in academia. The real world is chaotic.
Owning rental properties on the other hand, makes perfect sense.
Mutual societal matters are much less of a concern, than the success of the individuals...
It is the most unfortunate of all circumstances that in this, theoretically the most free of all countries, one cannot get to a position where one can live on a piece of property in a paid for house, on home grown food and just be left the HECK alone.
That is just utter nonsense. The elite of the colonies, i.e. the rich, were the founders of this country. That is not a dig at America, it is just a simple fact.
The "macro attitudinal expression" of the American public has actually been a shift toward, not dependency, but demanding assistance in assuring of individual freedoms; ie sufferage, education, freedom from slavery.......etc.
Without a government that considers the needs of the collective we are still slaves to the born elite.
Here's your place, at least if you're 65 or older:
In Alabama, if you are over 65 and live on less than 160 acres, there is no property tax.
I'm sorry, but if you look a a house as an investment, have the income to afford what you are buying, pay the appropriate down payment, and understand that there is no god given right for a house to appreciate then you should not have any problem selling a house and moving on.
The problem most people have is that they invested in a house with way too much leverage and cannot afford to take the loss. That's not a problem with ownership, its a problem of buyer's ignorance. Now to say that people should rent until they can afford a 30% or 40% down payment is probably good investment advice. But it's not what people want to hear. So rather than listen to reality, now people are saying "don't buy it's evil" to make up for their financial ignorance. This is the problem.
The point is that a person should be free to choose based on facts and not the lie that "ownership is basically bad" or that "we are moving to a rent society". These are just manipulations meant to fool people who are busy living their life.
Perhaps the "Collective" loving progressives need to start at the beginning, with the "Magna Carta", then they can take baby steps to our founding fathers and the principles that this great country used to prosper for the better part of 200 years!
Anyone who thinks we are guaranteed the "Freedoms we enjoy" so much today is sorely mistaken.
This fragile little experiment in freedom we call America is the exception to the rule!
Man has never enjoyed more freedom and liberty than under this divinely inspired nation and its "Law's of God", today the progressives, (who always think they know best) arrogantly want to cram down the American peoples throats some perversion that will forever change the balance of power with "Law's of Man"!
A step backward indeed!
When homeowners began using their abode has an ATM, I knew the end was near.
When the industry offered interest mortgages only, I knew this was the top and time to watch for a pop and a drop...
The collective farm and serfdom a waits you...
Don't prove the gaps in your knowledge and logic, let us guess instead.
Envious lazy Leftists. Why do you clutter up a capitalist forum? Answer, to spread your manure. Get a job, save, and invest and quit your whining. Nobody owes you a thing.
"The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e. (See Regulation).
The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. (See CRA Ratings) CRA examinations (see Exam Schedules) are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (http://bit.ly/IwLllV), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)."
http://bit.ly/IOhgBO
And, if I elected to live in the county without police and fire protection with my own septic tank and well, and home school my children, then why should I pay said taxes. I'll pay for roads with my gas tax. I pay sales tax on anything I choose to buy.
O, that's right. One needs to contribute to the "education" of the rest of the folks in the K-12 system. Well, put that in my state income tax (p.s. if I don't have any income than I don't pay any income tax)
You're also leaving out a lot of the things that you expect others to pay for so you don't have to. You're leaving out the infrastructure and the investments that make it possible to bring food to your table, blankets to keep you warm, and fuel to power your generator. You may feel regulations are evil but they're keeping the watershed where your well is located from being pure industrial waste. If you doubt that, there are many actual cases demonstrating that this is no idle concern. You're ignoring the fact that rural U.S. is a relatively safe place to settle BECAUSE someone else is paying for things that you want to be exempted from. If there were wandering hoards of starving savages -- teaming masses of thousands invading, torturing homesteaders for pleasure, and pillaging the countryside, would you still be so casually willing to forgo protection? Remember, the people in Medieval Europe and pretty much everywhere else in the world have at one time or another been willing to give up ALL freedom and live as serfs and chattel of a ruling class to avoid that fate.
Suppose your neighbor decides to claim rights to your land. Will you hand it over rather than take advantage of the court system to protect your property rights? Or will you avail yourself of the courts and the government agency that protects your rights in that situation and for which you do not want to pay?
Why do you object to the idea of a floating island on international waters anyhow? Too much work? If so, you're tacitly acknowledging all the benefits that you would get from living here, in the U.S., and for which you want others to pay.
As you can see in this example, neighboring activity can easily rob you of your property's value. Will you just stand by and let it happen, or will you avail yourself of legal and political processes to protect your property? If the latter, keep in mind that someone else is paying to keep these processes available to you.
You might also want to consider whether the state of Alabama is one that's more likely to care about individual property owners or about corporate profit in cases where these come into conflict.
Is that comment in English?
Please note the use of the question to denote that a question was asked. I learned that post-LBJ.
Please feel free to follow up with some lunacy about Obama being a communist.
Obama was destined to become the communist he IS!
Have you done any research on his father?
His mother?
How about the grand parents he was dumped on and they then took poor little Barry to the "Little Red Schoolhouse",
Obama's mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a self avowed communist!
Obama and his brain(Valerie Jarrett) are both pals with Bill Ayers dad, who along with Valeries dad were also very close friends of F.M. Davis.
Bill Ayers father was directly responsible for bring Barry into the fold of communism. He pledged young Barry!
With all the negatives Obama faced from childhood, it would be more amazing if he did "NOT" grow up to be a communist.
If you do some fact finding, you will be blown away by what Obama and the progressive parties biggest talking heads(Bill &Hillary Clinton) have been steeped in for years!
It is all right there, in their own words, its all over the place, just look for it....
As Dr. Zaius said to Taylor in the original "Planet of the Apes",
"Be careful, you may not like what you find out there"
The truth will set you free....
Our republic's future lie's with each and every "one" of us!
Its the individual,
the one,
that is paramount!
M.L.K. was all about the individuals right and responsibility!
The perversion of Sharpton and Jackson have bastardized the teachings of M.L.K.!
Its a shame,
the African American community has much to be proud of, but the progressive assault and revisionist history has damned a great number of them to become nothing more than wards of the ever growing entitlement state!
Its not "Social Justice",
its "EQUAL JUSTICE",
this is what M.L.K. WAS WILLING TO DIE FOR!
The charlatans like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do a massive dis-service to all people of color!
Don't even get me started on the biggest hate monger this country continually tolerates, Louis Farrakhan!
God Bless The Virtuous
Speaking of the rich, even *second vacation homes* can qualify for the mortgage interest deduction.
The reason mortgage interest deduction should disappear is it only 1. causes house prices to be high 2. encourages mal investment 3. rewards people for taking on debt. 4. welfare for buying something is wrong.
The tax on dividends and capital gains should not be high because this investment creates capital for actual economic growth.
But followed closely by the biggest racist to hold office in 50+ years, Mr. B Obama.
I loved it when he used the "C" word...Oh dear what's for lunch?
Soup and crackers! I denounce all of these clowns with laughter.
Oh wait, would that be construed as a hate crime?
Hear are your words: "The "macro attitudinal expression" of the American public has actually been a shift toward, not dependency, but demanding assistance in assuring of individual freedoms; ie sufferage, education, freedom from slavery.......etc.
Without a government that considers the needs of the collective we are still slaves to the born elite."
So ever growing government is not a mark of dependency?
Your first paragraph is nonsense: demanding individual freedoms in suffrage and education and slavery! I had no idea that these were today's salient issues, Poy2...
I wonder how many the elite have enslaved vs government, Poy? And if you feel safer with the latter then for you collectivism is more important than individual freedoms...
You can not have both...
In contrast, in 1950, when the top marginal tax rate was 91%, the poverty rate was less than half that -- 22%. Trickle down doesn't work. Progressive taxation, does work.
Sources:
(tax rate) http://bit.ly/ISdMsU
(poverty rate) http://bit.ly/J8zrQw
What the 15% rate for dividends has done is encourage financial speculation, not investment -- including failed speculation that the middle class was then called upon to pay for in the form of even greater handouts for the rich. Our economy has shifted from one based on real engineering (the 1950's) to financial engineering (the 2000's). Solid proof that your bargain basement tax rate for financilists is a failed policy.
You are missing the point. The whole point was about the ability for the state to take my property for failure to pay "property taxes".
BTW, the word progressive is code or PC in the liberal world, as all forms of taxation should be viewed as regressive; as on the margin they begin to destroy incentive.
We currently have a regressive tax system in which those with the highest income based on financial speculation are taxed at an effective federal rate of around 15% while our (rapidly declining) middle class is taxed at an effective federal rate of 45% (29% + 6% FICA). Additionally, most state and local taxes are regressive with the lower income brackets paying the highest rates.
The trend is clear. Wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people as the top marginal rate has been lowered. At the same time, the rate at which people are being pushed from the middle class into poverty has been accelerating.
Extrapolate this trend to its extreme and you end up with one guy, let's call him Soros, owning 100% of everything. Everyone else is without income and works for GigaCorp, owned by Soros. They get a voucher that allows them to buy food at the Soros-owned company store and gas from the Soros-owned gas station. Soros also owns the apartment in which you live and you pay him for your water and lighting. Recall the country-western classic Sixteen Tons? It was written by a Kentucky coal miner and that's where this trend is leading:
"You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
I agree it's unintuitive that increasing the top marginal rate would increase overall wealth. The theoretical arguments that it would discourage inititive sound persuasive. But history shows that it doesn't turn out that way. We were an extremely productive nation in the 50's with the top marginal rate at 91%. Amazing, yes. Counter-intuitive, yes. But true nonetheless. Maybe we don't need to return the top marginal rate to 91% I'd be ok with returning to the tax structure we had under Reagan, when the top marginal rate was 50%. But I think the proposal I mentioned above for directly taxing disparity is more fair to those with initiative and more flexible. I'd like to see it tried, perhaps with a 12-year sunset provision. We could evaluate it then.
While I personally prefer the flat tax, as "fair" is always in the mind of the beholder, as blueice noted, "progressive" is as prone to corruption (as you have seen in the US and elsewhere) as anything else which entails such purposeful and monumental complexity. The complexity, by the way, is not an accident as such dimensions are well known to be used to discourage the amateur and mildly interested critic.
However, discontinuation of such a complex system is not in the government's, accounting profession's, or legal profession's best interests. So, given that fact, what is the likelihood of its discontinuation, eh? Given history and the composition of government these days, I'd presume the tax system would get more complex rather than less, irrespective of its progressive, regressive or fair qualities, don't you think?
Furthermore, it breeds dependency upon a third party for sustenance...It exploits the enterprising person for the I&I class and weakens work ethics...
I&I + Irresponsible & Indolent
As the old saying goes, in the U.S. it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest.
So capital investment, the basic foundation of any modern society is now construed as financial speculation?
Top 1% pay over 50% of all federal taxes, and use little or no services provided thereof...
"Additionally, most state and local taxes are regressive with the lower income brackets paying the highest rates."
Please provide a link, the bottom 50% pay only about 5% of all federal taxes and I will bet the same is true for state incomes, as well...
And how many of lower income households are receiving a rebate from governments in the form of a earned income credit?
What is badly needed, is one tax for all forms of income!
If the middle class is declining, do not place the blame on free enterprise as it has no class motive that I am aware of...
Moreover, history has shown that even monopolies have a limited lifetime because fat margins creates competition...Just ax the good volks at AT&T...
Surfs up!
blueice, when did short selling become "capital investment"? That's not an arbitrary association. The primary funding group for the Republican party is the so-called club for "growth", led by a group of short sellers.
When did nanosecond trading become "investment"? This is a stock market site. You're not going to get very far confusing speculation with investment.
"Top 1% use little or no services provided thereof"
Really, they never travel by airplane (FAA), never import or export (harbors), have to hire their own militias to defend their property against foreign invaders? Fought the Somalian pirates themselves? Never use the court system to exert patent claims? Never used public lands for grazing or for resource extraction?
Texas billionaire Harold Simmons got pretty much his entire wealth from taxpayers. Two wars in Iraq were fought to benefit the oil and gas industry. The costs were socialized (everyone pays) while the benefits were privatized (more wealth for Halliburton, e.g.). I could go on and on. The facts are not with you on this one.
If you want to bandy the word "fair" about, here's what would actually be fair: The top 1% now own 90% of everything. That means they're benefiting from the system 900 times more than the rest of society. If this 1% is paying anything less than 90% of the TOTAL (not marginal rate) tax collected, they're not paying their fair share. No one is asking for that. No one is asking for anything even close to that. The most anyone is asking is a return to the rates under Reagan. And most are not even asking for that much. Of course this could change if the war on the middle class continues. We might soon see a much more aggressive set of demands.
"Please provide a link, the bottom 50% pay only about 5% of all federal taxes and I will bet the same is true for state incomes, as well..."
How much is your bet? Let's keep it a small amount: $100. Here's a link regarding state and local taxes being regressive: http://bit.ly/LxUlLW I win the bet. Are you going to pay up or are you going to welch?
"If the middle class is declining, do not place the blame on free enterprise"
Now you're just fabricating. I never placed the blame on free enterprise. Our regressive tax code is not improving free enterprise by strangling the middle class. It's suppressing free enterprise.
This is the numbers for 2008
139,960,580 tax returns with positive AGI totaling 8,426,625,000,000
Top 1%- 1,399,606 returns, 392,209,000,000 total taxes paid, 38.02% share of total income taxes, 23.27% average tax rate
1-5% 5,598,423 returns, 213,616,000,000 taxes paid, 20.70 % share of income, 17.21% avg tax rate.
5-10% 6.998,029 returns, 115,662,000,000 income taxes paid, 11.22% share of total income, 12.44% avg tax rate
10-25% 20,994,087 returns, 169,238,000,000 taxes paid, 16.4% share of income taxes, 9.29 avg tax rate
25-50% 34,990,145 returns, 112,990,000,000 taxes paid, 10.96 % share of income tax, 6.75% avg tax rate
bottom 50% 69,980,290 returns, 27,830,000,000 taxes paid, 2.7% share of income tax, 2.59% avg tax rate.
Incase this all just blends together. the average tax rate for the top 1% is 23.27% while it is 2.59% for the bottom 50%. Out of the 1.031 trillion dollers collected from income taxes, the top 1% paid 38.02% while the bottom 50% paid 2.70%. Middle class, 10-50%, paid 27.36% of the income. Seems to me the top 1% is "paying their fair share" since they pay the largest amount of any one group.
all this information is on the IRS website. You will have to do some digging to find it but it is there/
I would daringly and modestly suggest that the question is more of who controls the money in the US, as that is more pertinent to the original point of the burgeoning rental market for housing versus the investment in the country, community, and neighbourhood that home/property purchases represent. Having such an investment in the future of the country and the area around you would necessitate an interest in the larger economic view. On the other hand, if you are not philosophically invested in the welfare of the country and community, then perhaps you can be of a rental state of mind as one fast food outlet is pretty much the same as any other if you are willing to drive down the street for the next option. I'm really terrible at analogies, sorry; but owning a piece of the action, so to speak, generally implies a commitment that can be easily ignored by those not similarly tied. However, it is the supply of money (or its specie backing) and who controls it that is of far greater interest as this is what has meant the see-saw economic boom and bust for the last 150 or so years; and you only really have an interest in this larger question when you have "skin" in the game. This relates back to the original Constitutional debate where landowners were given rights of suffrage.
Sorry, perhaps this is another can of worms, but the tax issue is irrelevant when compared to the money control issue; in my small view, anyway.
Fact. If you took all (100% ) of the income from the wealthy (over $1mil /year) it would not pay the US government's debt for more than a few months. So take it all.
Now, how do you pay for the government waste. Well its the middle class that will pay. So what do you do, take all of their money also?
Fact. There has been and never will be a country where the rich do not control it and where they do not get the breaks. This includes every dictatorship, communist (you know those "for the worker types"), and socialist (you know the fair ones) country. Wonder why? Why because the fairness is a myth. The only way to be fair is for everyone to be poor. Its impossible for everyone to be rich. Why? because some people can't handle it and most don't want to work for it.
Fact. Every place where communism or socialism has been tried they have failed to create a country as safe, free, and prosperous as America. But go ahead and lets make destroying capitalism our goal. That way your friends can respect you as a progressive.
The best thing to do right now, forget about the rich. The problem is twofold. One, tax the poor. Everyone should pay taxes even if its only 10%. Why? Because if they don't pay anything they don't care about waste. The real problem today is the political elite con where they make you believe that the rich are the problem.
Two, eliminate government waste, fraud and theft. It just amazes me that normal people want to take money and give it to the cons and thieves in government. The government has never shown any ability to handle money, be truthful, follow though with campaign promises, etc. Why would we give them anything? Oh, I remember, so we'll feel good at night. Well I for one, don't feel good when I'm lying to myself that government can solve the problem. They can't and won't. Wake up.
1%- 20% agi - 38.02% taxes
1-5% 14.73%agi - 20.70% taxes
5-10% 11.03%agi - 11.22% taxes
10-25% 21.62%agi - 16.40% taxes
25-50% 19.86%agi - 10.96% taxes
bottom 50% 12.75%agi- 2.7% taxes
This shows that the top 10% pay more of the tax bill, 69.94% while only earning 45.76% of the income. You can hardly say that is not fair.
You can see the effects of this by looking through the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans -- a huge number are hedge fund managers. That's a new thing. The tax code is encouraging financial speculation and parasitical financialism instead of real productivity.
Short play a small but a very important role...They are essential market cops, halting rocketing stocks; punishing those for bad behavior, and taking others to the morgue...And someone has to carryout these unpleasant actions...
So short players, are important arbitragers or social workers.
Everything you described as services used by the 1%, is payed for by their fees or excessive tax assessment..
"Two wars in Iraq were fought to benefit the oil and gas industry" a silly adage by peace mongers...
Now the oil and gas companies, hear in America, are fighting a war against the Inferior Department, EPEEA, US Wildlife & Parks, and their Chief in Pillaging, the federal government and their junior suppliant, state government taxing agencies.
When you suggest someone who is wealthy should pay so much, then you know best, you want to rule, and you base your argument and rational solely on your own biases and prejudice..Fair is only how YOU and only you define it...
Furthermore, your links includes sales tax (indorsed by Demcos worldwide), excise tax and property tax, things that are not germane to the topic..
Why are not American socialists attempting to rid the poor of sale tax, because they care more about revenue than the impoverished..
The only real support for the poor and war on poverty is Mega Million, where the winner faces 40% taxes...
Our tax system should like a baseball game, where everyone plays by the same rules or should the underdog get six outs per inning and 12 innings a game?
Surfer, define the word fair for me, please...
BTW, I am currently parole, which prohibits me from gaming or gambling...Moreover, my parole officer is an avid user of seekingalpha...I do not want, Parole Officer Johnson, to engage in seeking blueice.
Surfs up...
I gave you a definition of "fair" already.
You have a lot of sound bites, blueice but you're short on facts. Some taxes "count" and some don't? May as well come out and say what you mean: "If the top 1% income earners pay this tax, I don't count it. If poor people pay this tax, I count it double."
As I said before, I can not accept your linkage because it is full of mombojumbo...
I am dialing the red line to the Cato Institute right now...Even the night watchman will refute your regressive income tax theory...
Besides, I did not even get a earned credit for agreeing with you, that sales tax is regressive...
I may add, that even property taxes are liberal (progressive is PC)...
In the current federal tax scheme, taxslaves are surcharge twice, if not thrice..First they asset on aggregate, then on what bracket they are in...What a racket...
If we payed chess, would you want two queens, because you are at a disadvantage, just to make things fair??
BTW, I am driving to Tijuana tonight to access my overseas account...Could I pay you in Pesos?
I have enjoyed the exercise greatly, indeed...To be fair, I must now repair...I bid you a pleasant night...
Answer to your question: Yes.
This return suggests home ownership is the way to go, especially in places like AZ that have been hit the hardest.
Moreover, this is an apple to pear comparison...
______________________...
I'm glad Gross used the word could as all of this seems to be bit far fetched and far from likely. Few people actually owned homes as most were encumbered, and leasing of automobiles is not exactly breathtakingly novel.
More likely, declining home ownership rates may make it more likely that labor mobility at the margin may increase and lead to more jobs being filled than would be the case otherwise. But bonds with family and friends also hamper labor mobility.
At best, this trend may help fill job openings but I do not see it spurring the creation of jobs.
Is that even a word?
This is a joke folks!
Hey Dan, did you come up with this drivel on your own?
It is not only silly but it is actually pretty foolish!
The people who rent do so, with regard to housing, trying to hopefully gather the down payment they should put down on a home!
This garbage of "No money Down" and all the fed induced policies of more home ownership are what brought us to today!
Come on and get real already.
We have a massive debt fueled 50 year credit binge to work off!
This is called DELEVERAGING, and the sooner the fed and our mistaken policy makers allow the system to clear,the sooner we come out the other side!
So Dan, instead of coming up with some cock and bull story about a rentership society, why not address something more worthy?
Where are the labor gangs to helf these poor souls?
BTW, I was earning a dollar a day in the US Army, in 1966...When I complaint to my commander, he said, we are in Japan for two years just think of the tourist monetary value of it.
And each and every time something does work out for a while people declare that it will always work best (tech stocks before 2000, commodities before 2008, real estate before the crash, renting now, etc.)
All they do is extrapolate the most recent past into the future. Even if they know that doing that never works, they still do it. They just can't help themselves.
Please, I do not need an overseer: I am not a pet nor a pawn; but rather I seek a free country to Rome and peruse my dreams which I hope are BO free.
I may need a helfing hand, from time to time, but a permanent crutch is not my touch...
However, most people do not mind if it's overly harsh to others, as long as it is overly generous to them.
http://bit.ly/JU6nuV
Now, however, with all the small farmers being gobbled up by the agri-corporations and the US defined as a corporate society, individuals' welfare is meaningless to Congress, as their welfare stems from more corporate largess than private individuals. One suspects that such a development was not envisioned two centuries ago, though the concept of ownership by those who are meant to be in control is consistent. The only difference is that this government appreciates the control of corporations and corporate personalities where in earlier times it appreciated the individuals as they (then) embodied the strength of the country. In a corporate society, rental arrangements for citizens/subjects benefit the corporate governance, finances, and control; individual ownership does not. Individuals, under a society governed by the rule of law can defend their property and property rights, but has anyone noticed the direction that loosely used term "rule of law" has gone? Out the window is my observation in pursuit of corporate interests and thus the drive toward taking people out of ownership and into rental arrangements as the latter position has virtually no "rights" under law except those granted in the rental arrangement.
The US will become what the voters want and if they are sufficiently blind to their self-interest by being tenants, then how many steps is it back to serfdom, serving the new lords of ownership?
This may sound like philosophical meaningless, but you have a vested interest in what you own and will defend it against unreasonable measures. The implications of this in converting it to a non-ownership basis puts you at the mercy of yet another bunch of potentially exploitive corporations/politicians and you will have no "castle" to defend.
In fact, they could be sold in tranches, so investors could select their own risk/reward parameters. For investors who prefer to take their exposure in synthetic form, CDS on the securities could be bundled up into CDO's of synthetic ABS.
Some of our big banks could take the lead in this activity, buying up the houses, warehousing them until they had enough to do a deal, and then passing the risk on down the line. The possibilities are endless.
The high risk side of me that looks for cash flow, though, ignoring personal philosophy and principles thinks it is probably a saleable idea.
I do wish I could rent a degree. I'd pay half of what I paid for college just to have a degree for job interviews only.
Another socioeconomic change which favors renting is that Gen X//Y feel no social prestige in owning a home -- it's more likely to be considered an albatross. The white-picket-fence dream is being replaced by something else ...
I think it's a kind of white powder.
I smell a "run it up the flagpole" tactic in this to see if the inexperienced will bite. It looks like folks are eager to trade their birthright for what they are told is an easy life. Interesting training they have received, though short on understanding long-term implications and not a sign of chess-move thinking much.
At the time the Constitution was signed it had to be sold to the states of the Confederation as the independent thinking locals did not see much advantage to a federal form of government, having just finished fighting off the taxing might of the British monarchy; thus the enlightening debates of the Federalist Papers. It is also notable that two states reserved the right to secede if it didn't work: Virginia and New York. Now this may not make sense to you and you may miss the connection, but the rationale was to prevent the imposition of an overly powerful central government, exactly what we have today, but I'll forgo the section on whining about today's government.
What was desired was controls on a federal government, thus the separation of powers and checks and balances written into the Constitution, two mechanisms that seem to have been eliminated except in procedural appearances form. The Rule of Law respecting property and individuals was a matter of practice, law, and honour in the days when folks elected to office were not professional politicians whose job it was to remain in office and increase the scope of their power.
Indeed, in today's semi-totalitarian government there is no longer any protection except, perhaps, at the state level if they act on the 10th Amendment issues some have ratified, once again returning to the concept of confederation, perhaps.
In my view, government is best when it is locally based, built broadly at the local level, thinning as it increases in jurisdictional area. Today we have the reverse and many hold out a hope for a return to a stronger local system. However, I deem that prospect unlikely as governments which accumulate power are loathe to give it up, resulting in many of the internal conflicts we have seen across the globe in history. What the US has today is the realisation of Jefferson's famous quote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have," sad as it is.
Defenders of the loftier ideals of the Enlightenment are disappearing as centrally mandated indoctrination replaces education amongst most of the population and also as those who live by principles and philosophy are outnumbered by those trained in the materialist media world.
I'm afraid you are correct in today's US, but it was not always thus; and it need not be so as the brief history of the US demonstrates. Bullies were not always in charge, though you may not have the memory of that time. I don't either, but I have perhaps read more history without revisionist opinion alterations.
I would argue that the cause-and-effect of the first link of your thesis is in the opposite direction: land ownership is falling out of favor because regionalism is fading. The reality of trans-regional economies encourages the movement of goods as well as labor over large distances. This in turn encourages (necessitates?) the development of centralized governmental bodies.
This is why, for example, the US Constitution gives the federal gov't the sole power to regulate interstate commerce, negotiate treaties and declare war -- it's more efficient.
Nowhere do we teach them about bad government, freedom, risks, and critical thinking.
Its no wonder the white powder is so attractive.
Of course, it will not turn out to be different, any more than in 1980, when pundits were saying we'd have to learn to live with ruinous inflation levels and ultra-high interest rates. All things go in cycles....perpetually. The record-low interest rates we now see won't persist indefinitely. Housing won't remain moribund for decades, despite popular wisdom.
It will only be seen in retrospect by most, as is usually the case, that the present time is one of the most glorious periods in our entire history to purchase a home and lock in an incredibly-low fixed-rate mortgage. Some, not all that many, years out, those extolling renting will be wondering why they were so foolish, as to leave themselves open to the risks of inflation and endless rent increases. And, they will look at homeowners, who will find their property values increasing in an inflationary environment, as has always occurred, with envy or, more likely, the usual class-warfare jealousy that's promoted these days by political opportunists.
No, I take that back, probably not. ;-))
What perhaps the young are not taught is that property ownership is a commitment to a local neighbourhood, the country, and people around you. This encumbers both a responsibility and a pledging of one's efforts to your family and others, a vein of thought not even contemplated in the self-serving culture who disdain their inherited responsibility to community and haven't considered the implications of a mobile culture orientation on the development of a stable family life.
Like many other things, if you aren't imbued with those ideals, you only learn their value through not having them.
Sorry if it sounds like lecturing, but I sense an immense distance in experience between us and I do not favour the failure of anyone. Then again, it is said that one only learns their lessons through failure - and I'm pretty adept at that.
That one is easy: rent going up, because rent increases are boundless, while depressed realty values are temporary, as are mortgage payments, if one is disciplined.
Also, consider this:
I had/have friends, who also boasted how much smarter it was to rent or pay interest-only mortgages (equivalent to rent). Now, twenty or more years later, I am comfortably retired with a fully-paid home and absolutely no fat mortgage payment whatsoever, while my friends grouse about the large perpetual overhang on their lifestyles caused by mortgage and/or rent payments. Furthermore, they, now, belatedly (remember those days when we were never going to get old?) realize that having a job and having income just flow in to pay those mortgages and rents isn't a perpetual accompaniment to life.
Some of them are wondering how they're going to lead a secure life with those large outflows still hanging above their heads and the prospect of significantly less income. Some won't.
http://bit.ly/KFdmav
You are correct, this is something my generation puts little stock in -- they believe that communities are properly built around common interests, not the facticity of geography.
The counterargument is that there are other places to put your capital where it can grow much faster than home values, allowing your afford rents and much more in the future. This includes the opportunity cost of not moving to get a better job, etc.
-Unemployment @ 8-18% depends on who you read though the majority of our young folks are working service related at or slightly above minimum wage $8-$12 hourly wages, If they are working at all.
-The Banks have been burnt by Subprime so ownership is not possible for the majority of low income earners.
Now for the Hussle:
May I introduce you to the "Land Lease" or "Rent to Own" system the exact language and name is dependent on your states laws.
In general here is how it works:
- I carry paper on the property but the renter does not get access to the ownership docs until the balance is paid in full so the title /abstract stays clear so I can then collateralize the property to buy another.
-I require a hefty Down payment as part of this arrangement, usually 6 months upfront. This payment comes to the low income folks via Earned income credit enhanced Tax returns.
-I give my land lease tenants 1 free missed payment every 3 years though most use it in the first 2 years, When the free payment is used it is my notice that the property is about to flip.
-I have a home warranty on the property that is covered by the tenant, my contract also makes the tenant responsible for the first $90 in repair costs thus the tenant covers the deductible on the home warranty.
-Rent is normally1.5- 2x the 30 year note payment + home warranty + insurance and taxes
-I plan on tenant default with me inside of the first 3 years. I clean the place up while I wait on tax season to roll around then "Rent" the property again...
Any questions?
If I only read one, which would you assign me?
Pain for all American and no class struggles...
No wonder, people have to rent!
http://bit.ly/JatLJ0