Seeking Alpha

The next economic boom, writes Daniel Gross, will be created by the efficiencies unleashed by...

The 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."
Comments (178)
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    And the real owners will be the rich. Then government will find the need to make the world fair and take this unfair advantage away from the rich and give it to the government. Then guess what, "if your a republican (or any other kind of dissenter) you will not be able to rent anyplace for any price." Why? Because its not good for the rulers (oh I mean the Country).

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    You have it backwards Neil. When the top 1% owns all the real estate, look for the government to start giving big tax breaks to landlords -- to be paid for by an extra tax levied from renters.

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    Wow!
    You clearly got an extra dose of the kool aid,
    poor kid!
    5 May 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    It is better to be a owner than a renter. The renter is just pissing money....

     

    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....
    5 May 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4013) | Send Message
     
    I say tax the poor. The more you tax something, the less you get of it.
    5 May 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, you are spot on!
    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...
    5 May 2012, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Brendan O'Boyle
    , contributor
    Comments (1115) | Send Message
     
    "It is better to be a owner than a renter. The renter is just pissing money...."

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    "This great country was formed with the individual in mind."

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4013) | Send Message
     
    Actually Brandon, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and Bill of Rights before disparaging individualism. Some people can handle freedom, others require the blood of others. Let's see where France is a year from now if the Socialists win. Although, they are probably toast either way.
    5 May 2012, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    With collective effort, each individual will prosper - so uttered Joesph Stalin before the All Soviet Congress 1921.
    5 May 2012, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    "The more you tax something, the less you get of it"

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    What Garbbage .
    5 May 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    Vote for Barney Frank , he really cares about he middle lass.
    5 May 2012, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    I second that motion! It is time to surf out of Mexicafornia.
    5 May 2012, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Stephen Alpher
    , contributor
    Comments (546) | Send Message
     
    Nice analysis! (referring to brenoboyle)
    5 May 2012, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • hawaiibound
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    SanDiegoNonSurfer,
    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.
    5 May 2012, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    Did he blue ice? Well that's great, I'm not Stalin, this isn't 1921, and this certainly isn't the soviet union. And to Geoffster, thanks for the read recommendation but I'm familiar enough. France is toast for the same reasons we almost were, poor economics. These are brief periods of ebb and flow which must not be mistaken for times to panic. Please don't misinterpret and overexaggerate what need be done. The people who feared individulism in the 60s/70s are now supporting it. Why? Because they support what is convenient for THEM, not what's better for society as a whole. And the silly part is what benefits society as a whole, naturally results in a better life for the individual! Not the other way around, no matter how that temporarily affects your bank account you guys.
    5 May 2012, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    As far as renting vs. owning, it all depends on what your goals in life are. Owners give up mobility for stability, while renters move freely with no concern. To each their own
    5 May 2012, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    I think you need to study your history a bit more and not buy the "kool-aid" version, Brandon, sorry. Revisionist history would have all sorts of meaningless claptrap reversed.
    5 May 2012, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    And what makes you think Romney doesn't care about the middle class? I'd be interested in your observation or facts?
    5 May 2012, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    Nyuszika please point out to me what part of my post leads you to believe I need to study my history a bit more?
    5 May 2012, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "And what makes you think Romney doesn't care about the middle class?"

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13557) | Send Message
     
    You're actually on to something here.

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "As far as renting vs. owning, it all depends on what your goals in life are. Owners give up mobility for stability, while renters move freely with no concern. To each their own"

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    If you read, as Geoff pointed out, The Federalist Papers, you may see that the individual was paramount in the early development of the philosophy and background of the country; not the rich or the religious or the politician (a figure generally unknown then as we have them today), but the dirt farmers of the north and south and the inventors of the developing manufacturing base, all populated by deeply convicted individuals who believed that their hard efforts put forth in trust and faith would make for themselves a better future. That is a view that was fairly dominant in the US, particularly in rural areas, until somewhere in the first half of the 20th century, probably beginning its demise with WWI or earlier with the urban rise of the secular "humanists". While the taming of the west may have been a largely hegemonic exercise, the structural underpinnings, which were populated by people who moved into previously unknown areas, were made up of folks believing in their version of their future and that for their families, a distinctly individualistic approach to one's future rather than relying on the state or corporate largess. The macro attitudinal expression of the US has undergone a sea change in the last 100 years with the advent of a governmental system whose professed motivation (by action if not precise words) is to create dependency in the population and, therefrom, extend its power base. Such a posture in our government does not encourage independence of thought or person, distinctly unlike the environment which spawned the likes of Andrew Jackson.
    5 May 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • New Century
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    what about in places where it is cheaper to rent than own?
    5 May 2012, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Neil, typical rent has a lower cost structure, simply because one has a much smaller and dense quarter, than a homeowner.

     

    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...
    5 May 2012, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    "The expected outcome from this is that the most empowered people in society (the wealthiest) would then be motivated to encourage opportunities..."

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1892) | Send Message
     
    Having had to follow work around the country for many years until I finally decided to stop, renting makes far more sense. Owning homes frankly, given the transitory nature of work, divorce lifestyles in general makes no sense at all.

     

    Owning rental properties on the other hand, makes perfect sense.
    5 May 2012, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1892) | Send Message
     
    Then you would need to tax crappy school administrators, teachers,crappy parents, misbehaving children and unions since they are creating a knowledge gap. The "expected outcome" from this would be the elimination of underperforming parents, teachers and workforces.
    5 May 2012, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Mr Gibbs, it is the individual that builds a society and not a beneficial society.

     

    Mutual societal matters are much less of a concern, than the success of the individuals...
    6 May 2012, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    Sorry....this looks like a good place to jump in. While I own, the reality is I rent. I rent from the state in which I live, because under no circumstances can I ever own my home free and clear from the threat of someone taking it away - i.e. the state. My failure to pay property taxes because of a health problem or some other issue, will get my paid for home taken away and sold for back taxes.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    W-Mark-W, very interesting comments and no chance of even opting out, but then there is also the houseboat - yes, no property taxes whatsoever!! And if they try, just sail away and stay away...
    6 May 2012, 01:25 AM Reply Like
  • Poypoy
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    "not the rich or the religious or the politician (a figure generally unknown then as we have them today), but the dirt farmers of the north and south and the inventors of the developing manufacturing base, all populated by deeply convicted individuals who believed that their hard efforts put forth in trust and faith would make for themselves a better future."
    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.
    6 May 2012, 06:24 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like Stalin to me, sorry. Keep on with the kool-aid, it suits your thinking, sorry.
    6 May 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Keep on the "kool-aid", it seem to suit you. It is a shame, though, that the indoctrination that passes for education since Johnson was president fails to encourage exploration and self-discovery as the state gives you all the answers you need, eh? People get not the government the want, but the government they deserve. Sorry.
    6 May 2012, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13557) | Send Message
     
    WM:

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4091) | Send Message
     
    Puerto Rico same for primary and secondary residence.
    6 May 2012, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Blue ice, While that may be true, and of course they may be some areas that make renting better through taxes and other misapplied legislation, at least where I live you can own cottages, condos, town homes, etc. (all with smaller footprints.)

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    The elimination of underperforming parents! Awesome!
    6 May 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • M0nst3rB0y
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Right on, but learn to surf.
    6 May 2012, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    Tack and Truffel Pig. Thanks for the information. I am opening another page in my browser as we speak, looking for farms and acreage in Alabama and Puerto Rico.
    6 May 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    Thankx to Geoffster and blueice,

     

    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!
    6 May 2012, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Mark is you buy, I am rated an AAA handyman! Will work on farm as well..
    6 May 2012, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Many good points, Neil When living in a shelter became called an investment, I knew we were approaching a top...

     

    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...
    6 May 2012, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    dark shadows, very, very profound words indeed!
    6 May 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Poypoy, I am sure there is a government program available for you, but please make sure that you and your friends pay for it, as I can stand on my own two 63 year old legs...

     

    The collective farm and serfdom a waits you...
    6 May 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    LBJ's war was not on poverty, but rather on liberties and individualism...BTW, another war that government lost...
    6 May 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Filighera
    , contributor
    Comments (448) | Send Message
     
    WMARKW -- articulate and to the point -- I agree with your statements and your sentiment!
    6 May 2012, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    Yes, you can set up home in international waters if you like. Of course you'll have to provide all your own sanitary facilities and either import or harvest all your own food. No one will come to protect or save you if your floating home catches fire, malfunctions, or is invaded. If total liberty is important to you, however, you might enjoy floating at sea alone and vulnerable. If that sounds like too much work or too dangerous then perhaps you begin to appreciate the benefits of civil society -- for which someone must pay.
    6 May 2012, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    WMW -- you might want to check this before you make your down payment: http://bit.ly/IwrhQy Local sales tax can be as high as 12% in Alabama and includes tax on food.
    6 May 2012, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • Poypoy
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    If you want to debate the merits of my comments, that is fine. You failed to refute anything that I wrote, but instead relied on personal and repetitive attacks. Is that the writing and debate style they taught prior to LBJ?
    6 May 2012, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Are you serious or a product of the government indoctrination system called public education and State U? Fictional wresting of history and philosophy of Locke, Hobbs, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison,et al.
    Don't prove the gaps in your knowledge and logic, let us guess instead.
    6 May 2012, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Romney was a son of privilege. But on the topic of irresponsible parents his father gave him no handouts except some American Motors Stock, that was barely enough to pay for college. The rest he earned by being smart and working hard starting in a concrete floored apartment while he and his wife, you know the one who stays at home and therefore really doesn't work, finished college.
    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.
    6 May 2012, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Call yourself a swan for all I care...but a duck is a duck and a Stalinist is a Stalinist.
    6 May 2012, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    ...and pay increasing property taxes for the rest of yuor life to fund bells and whistles.
    6 May 2012, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    The industry was on governmental steroids provided by the pusher Barney Frank and friends at Fannie and Freddie. The gun at the head was called the Community Reinvestment Act:
    "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
    6 May 2012, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Born and raised in PROM (Peoples Republic of Maryland). Have lived in the South post-military for 300+ years, the last 18 in Alabama. Shhh, keep it a secret or the collectivists will come here and try to bring their coastal mentality with them.
    6 May 2012, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Most believe the Constitution grants our rights. Wrong, it was intended to limit the prerogatives of a centralized government. Our rights inure naturally from the Creator God.
    6 May 2012, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Always some anonymous boogey man stole your candy.
    6 May 2012, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    What's there to debate? Were you here before LBJ's not xo Great Society commenced to dismantle America piece by providing a perfect set up for the Communist-in-Chief in the White House.
    6 May 2012, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    I happy to pay for the "protections" afforded by a civil society, such as fire and water and police. Qustion. Why do they have to come under the form or a "property" tax that can place a lien on my property? Why not just a sales tax or a state income tax?

     

    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)
    6 May 2012, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    WMW, there is no location in the United States that is not protected by the military and by non-military police forces. Seriously, if you want to do w/o that, you'll need to move to international waters.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    One more consideration for you, WMW: http://bit.ly/JqmuQY

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • Poypoy
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    "Were you here before LBJ's not xo Great Society commenced to dismantle America piece by providing a perfect set up for the Communist-in-Chief in the White House. "

     

    Is that comment in English?
    Please note the use of the question to denote that a question was asked. I learned that post-LBJ.
    7 May 2012, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • Poypoy
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    You used a question mark there, so I now know a question was asked. Yes, I am the proud product of a public school. I was not born a privileged elite, but thankfully I was born in a country where a sense of fairness and egalitarianism was instilled, partly by some of the ideas of the men you listed, but obviously fail to grasp.

     

    Please feel free to follow up with some lunacy about Obama being a communist.
    7 May 2012, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    poypoy

     

    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....
    7 May 2012, 02:42 AM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    Spot on blueice
    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
    7 May 2012, 02:56 AM Reply Like
  • kimboslice
    , contributor
    Comments (1523) | Send Message
     
    The mortgage interest deduction is welfare for people who have mortgages.
    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.
    7 May 2012, 04:17 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Don't even get me started on the biggest hate monger this country continually tolerates, Louis Farrakhan! "

     

    But followed closely by the biggest racist to hold office in 50+ years, Mr. B Obama.
    7 May 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Dark Shadows, I once watch a tape of the Most High and Revered Louis Farrakhan, and could not helf myself laughing along the way...

     

    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?
    7 May 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Poypoy, where are the attacks? Please reread my simple paragraph and if you have any difficulties operators are standing by.

     

    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...
    7 May 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    kimboslice, you're arguing for trickle down. Here's what your trickle down theory has brought us: A small group of 400 people now own 87% of all wealth in the U.S. while the number of people now living in poverty has risen to 46%.

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    Kimbo.....that welfare you speak of for the mortgage interest deduction adds up to about 2 months of unemployment benefits. It used to be that home ownership was a USA objective. But as most other things the government does, they don't seem to be very effective when they try to encourage at the margin. So you know, according to the Tax Policy Center the benefit is primarily realized by the top Quintile of tax payers and averages $2344 in that cohort. Interestingly, the top 1% get an average benefit of $3752. Seems like the higher your income, the less requirement you have for a mortgage.
    7 May 2012, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    I have no objection ot the idea of an island in international waters. I have no objection to paying income taxes or sales and use taxes. I do have an objection to paying property taxes, which once again do not pay for federal highways. The court system is there to protect the rights of individuals. I am happy to use the court system and let the loser pay for the cost of event.

     

    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".
    7 May 2012, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    WMW, if the link between property tax and loss of ownership is your only complaint, fair enough. For me there would be a question of whether moving to a place where one can avoid that link is a net win. But as long as you're willing to pay an arbitrarily high price for "the principle of the thing" and are willing to relinquish other individual rights and freedoms in exchange (as determined by the politics of your new location), that's achievable. My point is a different one -- that there's no free lunch. Someone is paying the costs of civil society -- including the absence of roving bands of brutal savages. It may not be you paying for it, but someone is paying for it.
    7 May 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Surfergirl, why would not your dividends arguments also apply to the "progressive" tax system?
    7 May 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    blueice, just look at history.
    7 May 2012, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Surferwomen, why does the progressive tax system work?

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    blueice, no code. There's a clear definition of progressive, flat, and regressive tax systems.

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    If anyone is looking toward what works, vis-a-vis improving the economy, inward investment, and expansion, you might look at Canada, where a lower business tax rate than the US - in addition to a not so corrupt central banking system - has helped them weather this storm far better than the gorilla south of them which helped bring it on. One might also note the impact on economic growth, springing from almost complete stagnation, that was brought about with the newly elected Maggie Thatcher's listening to the advice of Patrick Minford and other like-minded economists, by reducing the staggeringly high taxation levels of the Keynesian-following Labour party.

     

    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?
    7 May 2012, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    One vote from nyuszika for "socialist" Canada :-)
    7 May 2012, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    nyuszika, a most brilliant reply! America's taxxx system is just another means of redistribution of wealth, under the guise of "fairness." It simply represent the socialists model or ideology...

     

    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
    7 May 2012, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    Correct, blueice. The U.S. tax system has been redistributing wealth for the past 20 years -- taking away from the middle class and giving to the rich.

     

    As the old saying goes, in the U.S. it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest.
    7 May 2012, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Surferperson, I will give you an A for your prolific writings..

     

    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!
    7 May 2012, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    "So capital investment, the basic foundation of any modern society is now construed as financial speculation?"

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    The data is hard to find but it is possible. If you search around on the IRS website, you can find a breakdown of income and taxes up to and including 2008.

     

    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/
    7 May 2012, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Folks, the red herring that is the tax system "debate" is irrelevant as long as it does not control the money system. The IRS, by the way if you were not aware, is a legal agency of the Federal Reserve System, not the Federal Government, so consider the implications of who collects your money for what. Clue: rather than public programs, who has first draw on tax dollars for what purpose? Just an errant thought, sorry.

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    SanDiego, The problem today is that the 50% that do work are paying everything for the 50% that don't work.

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    I also wanted to add a few other bits of info from the same group of data I based my other post on. Here is a break down of % of agi to %of income taxes collected
    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.
    7 May 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    rsanders, these IRS breakdowns are useful data. I've previously gone through a similar exercise for earlier years and when I did it, the net effective rate for the highest group of earners was lower than for the group immediately below. You need to watch out for AGI. That doesn't capture true income. It's income minus deductions. Case in point -- for those in the financial sector, the rate is much lower -- 15%.

     

    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.
    7 May 2012, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    Again, rsanders, AGI is not "income". It's just an accounting figure.
    7 May 2012, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Surfer, I am getting out my surgical instruments...

     

    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...

     

    7 May 2012, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    You're on parole? LOL! Creative excuse! You already bet, now you're just looking for ways to not pay 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."
    7 May 2012, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    Thanks. I know the difference between AGI and gross income. Unfortunatly I cannot find information from the IRS about gross income otherwise I would use that. Finding the information from the government is very difficult. I wonder if they like to keep it that way.
    7 May 2012, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    rsanders, yes, they do.have that information. I found it once -- that was when I originally spotted the regressiveness. The data were already tabulated, which made it easier. Unfortunately, at the time I figured I'd easily be able to find that page again and that hasn't turned out to be the case. I realize that means I can't prove I saw it. However, proving things with data doesn't seem to make any difference in this discussion anyhow and I seem to be the only person posting who's expected to demonstrate anything. Everyone else feels a soundbite is adequate.
    7 May 2012, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    I can not find your official definition of "fair." Would you please give it to me again.

     

    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?
    7 May 2012, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    You don't need to pay me blueice. I just couldn't resist the chance to put your integrity to the test. You did what I expected only twice as hilariously with your tall tale about being on parole. You get points for being creative. Does that make you happy?
    8 May 2012, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Thank you most kindly, my dear gentlewomen. You have stress tested my mine and I have quite a lode...

     

    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.
    8 May 2012, 01:02 AM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    If being a renter is so great and such a cost savings, then why is it Warren Buffet wants 100,000 single family homes that he can rent out? Why are the home builders renting more homes all the time? It seems there is some money to be made there and I would rather be making the money than paying it out. All we really have here is crappy banks and government which caused the housing debacle and the resulting recession. The result is Gross's dynamism. The US economy does not "need" this "dynamism"..... it has been forced on folks because the stability is no longer there.
    5 May 2012, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • Brendan O'Boyle
    , contributor
    Comments (1115) | Send Message
     
    They do so because some areas you can generate 12% ROE by buying a house and renting it out.

     

    This return suggests home ownership is the way to go, especially in places like AZ that have been hit the hardest.
    5 May 2012, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    That is so Saint Buffet can shelter more taxes.
    6 May 2012, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Many will scream that you are profiting at other's expense and taking advantage of their misfortune. The reality is you are providing liquidity and price discovery that will clear the logjam if Government would get out of the way.
    6 May 2012, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    We got a chapter rather than a paragraph. The only efficiencies produced out of renting is - mobility and capital appreciation.

     

    Moreover, this is an apple to pear comparison...
    5 May 2012, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3058) | Send Message
     
    From the article: Across the board—for goods ranging from cars to books to clothes—Americans are increasingly acclimating to the idea of giving up the stability of being an owner for the flexibility of being a renter. This may sound like a decline in living standards. But the new realities of our increasingly mobile economy make it more likely that this transition from an Ownership Society to what might be called a Rentership Society, far from being a drag, will unleash a wave of economic efficiency that could fuel the next boom.
    ______________________...

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • into dark shadows
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    Rentership?
    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?
    5 May 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    As usual, the left wing is here chanting the same old crap about the 1%.
    5 May 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    And furthermore, rassanders, what about the other 1% which the 99 percenters never talk about; who earn 23 cents per hour and have to wear uniforms 24/7?

     

    Where are the labor gangs to helf these poor souls?
    5 May 2012, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • SaltyDog62
    , contributor
    Comments (740) | Send Message
     
    Are you referring to the Military? 23 cents per hour sounds about right given the 20 hour days i put in while on deployment. But now reaping the benefits of 5000 dollar a month retirement if you include VA disabilty
    6 May 2012, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Salty Dog, Sir, thank you for serving and may God bless you always...LOL but I was referring to the great masses in our "collective" penal institutions..

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Vietnam at $90/month...but combat pay bonus made me rich!
    6 May 2012, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    I heard you were trading with the NVA! LOL.
    7 May 2012, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • alrado
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    After reading the article I agree that many of the concepts such as renting; cars, textbooks, homes vs. buying makes economic sense in certain situations. That said, I'm not seeing that this trend will create "the next economic boom".
    5 May 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • klarsolo
    , contributor
    Comments (706) | Send Message
     
    It is so funny: each and every time something doesn't work out for a while people declare it dead forever (real estate now, buy & hold investing, etc.).

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    No more special tax cuts for the top 1%. President Obama is the few and proud American looking out for middle-class workers.
    5 May 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4013) | Send Message
     
    Agreed Terry. Obama is looking out for the middle class. He's looking out about 20 years until there won't be any as a result of his successful collectivization of all but the top 1%. Even Stalin recognized that apparatchiks had to be motivated to support him.
    5 May 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    Helping out the middle class by destroying old vehicles, trying to make electricity more expensive, trying to create regulations that would make business's move out of the country. Nothing he has done would directly benefit the middle class except extending the Bush tax cuts. He (his administration) made it harder for working adults to go to college.
    5 May 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    Is Obama really the best the democrat party can do? Well, I guess he is better than Biden.
    5 May 2012, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    Terry....thanks for another on point comment about the article.
    6 May 2012, 01:01 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Oy vey.
    6 May 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    I sure like the special cuts on your bathing suit, Terry!

     

    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...
    5 May 2012, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    Terry You've got the 1% look. Share it with the 99% .
    5 May 2012, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Doesnt all this never ending bickering over who pays how much, and who gets what deduction make you want to look at the the "Fair Tax" ?? It would really be a great step in the right direction.
    5 May 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4013) | Send Message
     
    That's a major objection to the Flat Tax. It would be a step in the right direction not the direction the left has in mind.
    5 May 2012, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    It all depends on what you consider "fair". Is fair everyone pays the same amount no matter what? Is fair you make you you pay more? Is fair a guy that works 80 hours a week at $10/hour pays the same amount as a guy who works 40 hours @ $20/hour. Is fair a billionair that worked up from nothing pays the same taxes as Paris Hilton who inherited her money? The right, left, and center will never really agree on what fair is.
    5 May 2012, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • klarsolo
    , contributor
    Comments (706) | Send Message
     
    rasanders, don't strain people's brains too much. "Fair tax" sounds so great on paper, let's rather not think about what exactly this means. Because if you do you quickly find out that any tax system, no matter how simple or complicated, will be overly generous to some, and overly harsh to others.

     

    However, most people do not mind if it's overly harsh to others, as long as it is overly generous to them.
    5 May 2012, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    FairTax.org

     

    http://bit.ly/JU6nuV
    5 May 2012, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    They don't "pay the same." They pay the same rate. Big difference.
    6 May 2012, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    LOL, welcome to serfdom America.
    5 May 2012, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4091) | Send Message
     
    I own land. I won't sell it. I just love it and I am planting native trees in it and make it a mini heaven. If you rent something you would never to that.
    5 May 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    If we look at history for a brief moment, one might remember that the founding fathers' original vision of a voter was one that owned land, primarily because it was an agricultural culture at the time. However, parallel to this is the long-term commitment to the welfare of the union and self-protective vision that ownership entails, i.e., it was in the interest of the preservation of the country and its best interests that motivated this vision of the country ruled by people with a vested interest in its progress.

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Well said, you beat me to the "Defend ones Castle" : )
    5 May 2012, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Points about the corporation I would replace with government. But you are spot on about the difference between ownership and rentership. Anyone who has ever been a landlord knows how renters treat other'r property.
    6 May 2012, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5410) | Send Message
     
    There is a lot of potential here. The rental houses could be packaged into securities that would have excellent yield and ample margin of safety. Of course areas like California and Nevada, where house prices have been ariticially depressed will be much in demand.

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2816) | Send Message
     
    LOL :-)))
    5 May 2012, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4091) | Send Message
     
    You are crazy Tom. LOL
    5 May 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Given what must be a huge inventory in foreclosed properties, who is not to say that this is already in the works? Sadly as it might be so. We seem to be getting into the "here we go again" syndrome all too often.

     

    The high risk side of me that looks for cash flow, though, ignoring personal philosophy and principles thinks it is probably a saleable idea.
    5 May 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    Great sarcasm Tom. Best I've seen in a while.
    5 May 2012, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Myers
    , contributor
    Comments (256) | Send Message
     
    This is not an improvement as people would prefer to own houses, cars, and clothes, but they simply don't make enough money to do so. It's not a secular shift in attitude as much as a secular shift in the economy.

     

    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.
    5 May 2012, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • billddrummer
    , contributor
    Comments (1694) | Send Message
     
    That is a good idea. Renting credentials makes more sense than spending all that time and money studying.
    5 May 2012, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Ownership vs. renting is not the right question. The right question is "Which strategy is the optimal use of my capital?" Given that people change jobs and even careers so frequently these days, all else being equal the balance is shifting towards renting.

     

    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 ...
    5 May 2012, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    "The white-picket-fence dream is being replaced by something else ... "

     

    I think it's a kind of white powder.
    5 May 2012, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    If it weren't for talcum, meth or anthrax, young people would want to own homes?
    6 May 2012, 03:26 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    It is the self-serving culture, the one taught to everyone by television and government. Materialism in full delusional mode. It is merely a classic demand creation strategy in order, one thinks, to eliminate the classic self-determination that was the driver behind the development of the country. Using the time-worn class struggle tactic is just an acceleration of the divide/conquer and reap votes strategy of the competing establishment groups. By eliminating real property ownership government can get rid of all that messy rule of law stuff that used to check its actions and expansion while protecting individuals from an overly powerful regime.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Could you explain exactly how real property ownership acts as a bulwark against tyranny, more so than other kinds of property? If a superior force wants your stuff, they're gonna take it, no matter what type of stuff it is.
    6 May 2012, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Excuse the length, but some background is required, perhaps.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    So your thesis is that a regionalist sentiment, engendered by land ownership, precludes a totalitarian centralization of power?

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Nyuszika, is brilliant...He is a threat to the average users, like myself, and as such should be ban!
    6 May 2012, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Thanks, I think.
    6 May 2012, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Best I've read here.
    6 May 2012, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Thank you. I appreciate and like your expressions, as well. Tu ne cede malis...
    6 May 2012, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Economic Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2530) | Send Message
     
    Very well written.
    24 May 2012, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • SaltyDog62
    , contributor
    Comments (740) | Send Message
     
    Beginning to sound like Yahoo comments. The fact is the rich will always get richer off the backs of others. It's always happened and always will happen. Thank goodness I am wealthy...
    6 May 2012, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • tennkid
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    I think when you look at what renting vs. buying means in the 21st century compared to the 18th century. I would say that "owning" today isnt very different than renting as the majority never really get debt free and refinance at the first opportunity to liquify their equity for discresionary consumption. This only perpetuates their ownership duration and they never really pay it off they are just renting from the bank but actually have more maintenance risks and market risks than true renters as the bank makes them think that they actually "-own" it. But the bank really owns it! Ps. I do own....
    6 May 2012, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Why should a young person care about anything? They get told what to say, what to think, what to wear, how to behave, they have no say in what taxes they pay, where they can live, etc. They can't even breath without breaking the law (since exhale is now a greenhouse gas subject to taxation.)

     

    Nowhere do we teach them about bad government, freedom, risks, and critical thinking.

     

    Its no wonder the white powder is so attractive.
    6 May 2012, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Nice.
    6 May 2012, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13557) | Send Message
     
    The essence of this article is "it's different this time."

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    One might remember, perhaps, the persistent, derogatory remarks about the European situation and their life in this column and others. Why remember? Well, Europe is primarily a rental housing economy (as opposed to North American rates of home ownership), making them subject to the whims of local housing demand and landlords, just as this article promulgates for the US. If adopted, then, at least that should quench the sniping about Europe, eh?

     

    No, I take that back, probably not. ;-))
    6 May 2012, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    What's worse, your rent going up or being underwater on a mortgage?
    6 May 2012, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    In that unfortunate situation it depends on where you live, the potential for protection through bankruptcy laws, your need to use it, the talent of your legal advice, and to what you are committed. Having been to the "pit" and returning, I would still opt for property as there are options one never has in a society ruled by laws that never exist for renters.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13557) | Send Message
     
    Hyp:

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    This is essentially the communitarian argument:

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • Hypnos7
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    This is a fair point, that owning a home is an insurance policy against skyrocketing home values, and thus rental rates.

     

    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.
    6 May 2012, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Which is easier to cut?
    6 May 2012, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    A great teacher if one is willing to learn
    6 May 2012, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • JohnLocke
    , contributor
    Comments (381) | Send Message
     
    The Rental game is the next big hussle, let me explain...

     

    -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?

     

    6 May 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Are you associated with the Lock Foundation?
    6 May 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    You are incomplete. Add a reverse mortgage to get the old geezer spendthrifts.
    6 May 2012, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    You are correct, Mr Locke, but then this is why the Federal government introduced Head Start for Adults.
    6 May 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Are you serious? Read Locke, Hobbs, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison and the Federalist Papers, Justice Learned Hand, deTocqueville. Don't prove your willful ( I hope, or you prove again the deficiency of public education) ignorance, let the rest of us guess.
    6 May 2012, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Romney read any of those guys?
    6 May 2012, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    That is a lot of work Professor! You are ruthless.

     

    If I only read one, which would you assign me?
    6 May 2012, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • Economic Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2530) | Send Message
     
    Regarding De Toqueville, while many are familiar with "Democracy in America", don't miss "Ancien Regime", his assessment of his home country, France, the next domino to fall to Revolution.
    24 May 2012, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Poypoy
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    This thread has too many chromosomes.
    7 May 2012, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10454) | Send Message
     
    And some are pretty twisted !
    7 May 2012, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Go Kings!
    8 May 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3436) | Send Message
     
    Non Surfergirl, oh looky here American are spending more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter....Helter Skelter...

     

    Pain for all American and no class struggles...

     

    No wonder, people have to rent!

     

    http://bit.ly/JatLJ0
    8 May 2012, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • M0nst3rB0y
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    The rich have bled the US middle class past the point of return. In today's America lawyers are idle! When gun sales start to fall the last ember of the US middle class is completely gone. The next economic boom belongs to the country with the dynamic economic engine only an educated propertied middle class can provide. Nothing will be left for the wealthy US families but visit London and reminisce with the previous empire.
    12 Aug 2012, 10:44 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector