Neal Anderth wrote:

danivon wrote:Essentially, private rental is based on the landlord being able to buy a house to rent out. And on a renter being able to rent it. I'm not saying that this should not happen, but for the renter it's dead money.

Still not the case. I'm of the opinion at least in the US that renters are in the more favorable position in terms of economic advantage at the moment. There's risks involved with real estate and each party makes what they think is in their best interest, they may win or they may lose as a result.

When a renter pays rent, they get housing for it, but no more. They are not investing in a house, which is why it is 'dead money'. There are times, yes, when it is advantageous to rent (although for my part I always saw housing as a place to live rather than as a financial investment. The renter is usually not holding the whip hand. And their position is not all that flexible. Moving is a hassle and costs money, and involves the worry about whether the new property has a good landlord, is in a decent state etc. And there's always the "will I get my deposit back?" question.

Presently in the US we've heard endless commentary about how dangerous interest only loans are and how people were taken advantage of with them. However again it's not that simple. A 5 year ARM interest only mortgage could have a lot of advantage. If you take a home that you can afford on a standard 30 year fixed interest rate loan, and convert it to a 5 ARM interest only loan you can during those 5 years with the exact same payment pay double on principal what you would have on the fixed rate. The advantages are significant with the interest only loans. You have much more flexibility, you pay double principal with same payment, and if you wind up in unforeseen financial trouble you can more easily make your payment. Now if you consider that people move on average every 7 years than it even makes all the more sense to use the interest only loan model. Now obviously there are many pitfalls with them, and I'm not going into that here as it's oft repeated in the media. I just use it as an example of how the prevailing common sense isn't always quite what it's portrayed.

Mortgages are not quite the same in the USA as they are here, clearly. We tend not to get long term fixed interest deals, but variable ones with a short period of fixed or discounted rates up front. Interest Only loans are fine as long as you are either overpaying to reduce the principle (but if so, why not get a repayment loan?) or you have an investment that is earning more quickly than loan interest does (unlikely, as banks operate and then make a profit on the reverse being the case).

Rent money isn't always dead money. It can wind up being financially advantageous.

Rent money is not going into an interest only loan by the tenant/renter, but by the landlord/rentier. To the tenant the money is effectively dead - they spent it and it's gone. Just like food money, or beer money, it is not being used to build assets.

Comprendé?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-support-budget-deal-but-oppose-cuts-to-major-programs/2011/04/19/AFK5077D_graphic.html

Politics being what it is, the art of the possible, if American opinion is being measured accurately in the poll linked above (Washington Post)
then a resolution on a budget that truly attacks deficits is a long way off.
According the the poll, a majority of Americans don't want to change medicare or cut funding to it or medicaid. Or cut spending on military. Or raise taxes, except on the wealthy (Over $250,000 income.)

Exactly why you cut everyone equally. Something must be done. Griping about who/what gets cut on pushes the problem down the road. Not that I agree with everything Rand Paul says, but at least his budget cuts everyone. His budget shows a much more serious approach to deficit reduction.

http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

rickyp wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-support-budget-deal-but-oppose-cuts-to-major-programs/2011/04/19/AFK5077D_graphic.html

Politics being what it is, the art of the possible, if American opinion is being measured accurately in the poll linked above (Washington Post)
then a resolution on a budget that truly attacks deficits is a long way off.
According the the poll, a majority of Americans don't want to change medicare or cut funding to it or medicaid. Or cut spending on military. Or raise taxes, except on the wealthy (Over $250,000 income.)

First, it is "adults." That is the least legitimate method and always skews toward the Left.

Second, this goes back to what I've been saying--many Americans don't understand how the system works. If they don't know who the Speaker or Majority Leader are, what are the odds that they understand the percentages of government spending in various areas? I guarantee you they don't know that raising taxes on "the rich" won't do more than scratch the surface.

Third, and this is really tough: who do you suppose should be the "educator-in-chief?"

It should be the President. However, there are two reasons he's unserious about the debt: 1) he doesn't care about it. In his mind, there's no such thing as bad government spending; 2) if he actually told people the truth, he would lose his major campaign issue. He can't really tout his achievements--medical insurance reform is not popular, he's involved the US in a third war, inflation (counting fuel and food) is 10%, and unemployment is hovering around 9%. So, when the facts don't help, what's a "leader" like Obama to do? Campaign like the demagogue he is!

Some more evidence of what the President intends--lying from now until election day:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

"According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third," he said. "...You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?"

Mr. Obama noted that the United States has been given a "D" grade for its infrastructure and said U.S. roads, sewers and bridges are "all deteriorating." He added: "We cut transportation by another third and what's going to happen to America? We're just going to have potholes everywhere? We're just gonna have bridges collapsing everywhere?"

While experts say America's aging infrastructure is a significant problem, the bridge collapse in Minnesota, which killed 13 people, was found to have been caused primarily by a design flaw.

He consistently says things he knows aren't true. Some of the press are beginning to catch on. Will the American people?

Meanwhile, the President has stressed high-speed rail. Why? How many bridges could be fixed and potholes filled instead of building trains few will use?

I was talking this morning to someone who works in Boston. If he drives and goes in early, it takes him just over an hour. If he takes the train, it takes three hours. Why is that? Because of the inefficiency of the train route. It passes to within a hundred meters of where he needs to go, but he has to back track quite some distance to get there.

Doctor Fate wrote:many Americans don't understand how the system works. [snip] I guarantee you they don't know that raising taxes on "the rich" won't do more than scratch the surface.

Yeah, but it would go a long way to making things more fair, which matters a lot in a democracy, and people get it; they see what's going on. The rich should pay more and you and Orrin Hatch saying, "well go ahead if you want to pay more, who's stopping ya?" does not play well politically. Obama's got his finger on the pulse of America. He knows there is rage at the inequity and he's going to play it for all it's worth.

Esteban/Étienne/Steve wrote:If he takes the train, it takes three hours. Why is that? Because of the inefficiency of the train route. It passes to within a hundred metersof where he needs to go, but he has to back track quite some distance to get there.

Meters? Now "yards" and "feet" ain't good 'nuff for you, huh, comrade? I hear hanging out with all those leftist in the Northeast will do that to you. Soon, you'll be bi-lingual and pepper your speech a smattering of sign-language to make sure you're inclusive.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:many Americans don't understand how the system works. [snip] I guarantee you they don't know that raising taxes on "the rich" won't do more than scratch the surface.

Yeah, but it would go a long way to making things more fair, which matters a lot in a democracy, and people get it; they see what's going on. The rich should pay more and you and Orrin Hatch saying, "well go ahead if you want to pay more, who's stopping ya?" does not play well politically. Obama's got his finger on the pulse of America. He knows there is rage at the inequity and he's going to play it for all it's worth.

He's got his finger on the pulse of 30-35% of America. He's playing class-warfare for all its worth. We'll see if it's enough.

"Fairness?"

Remind me: you're a swing voter?

Is it "fair" to intentionally afflict harm on the economy--which is what raising taxes would do now? Of course, given the jobs Obama has intentionally dismissed in the oil industry, I guess that's not really a consideration for him.

Meters? Now "yards" and "feet" ain't good 'nuff for you, huh, comrade? I hear hanging out with all those leftist in the Northeast will do that to you. Soon, you'll be bi-lingual and pepper your speech a smattering of sign-language to make sure you're inclusive.

Actually, I'm doing all I can to shed the English system. They don't even use it, so how good can it be?

Beyond that, I've got passable Spanish skills, can read German and a few other languages. I use sign language when it suits me--or when I'm rooting for Marlee Matlin on Celebrity Apprentice.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:many Americans don't understand how the system works. [snip] I guarantee you they don't know that raising taxes on "the rich" won't do more than scratch the surface.

Yeah, but it would go a long way to making things more fair, which matters a lot in a democracy, and people get it; they see what's going on. The rich should pay more and you and Orrin Hatch saying, "well go ahead if you want to pay more, who's stopping ya?" does not play well politically. Obama's got his finger on the pulse of America. He knows there is rage at the inequity and he's going to play it for all it's worth.

He's got his finger on the pulse of 30-35% of America. He's playing class-warfare for all its worth. We'll see if it's enough.

"Fairness?"

Remind me: you're a swing voter?

Is it "fair" to intentionally afflict harm on the economy--which is what raising taxes would do now?

Yes, it is grossly unfair that among people who pay taxes, the richest among us pay the least amount in taxes as a percentage of their income. We can debate their impact on the economy, but that doesn't change the fact that this disparity is grossly unfair, and I'll say it again, in a democracy, fairness matters.

Geo,
Since Danivon or RickyP won't give me a number in the other thread, what do you think would be a fair percentage that ALL US citizens would pay for taxes? Boil it all down and give me a number. I could say 20%. I have an awful difficulty giving more to the government than tithe, but for fairness, I would love to see a number.

geojanes wrote:Yeah, but it would go a long way to making things more fair, which matters a lot in a democracy, and people get it; they see what's going on. The rich should pay more...

Geo,

Yes the top wage earners pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes. However, the top 10% already pay something like 70% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay something like 5% of income taxes.

So I am curious. How much more should the rich pay?

If that figure is true Russ then it says a lot about how wealth has become concentrated in the hands of the top 10%, especially since your top rate of tax is comparatively low.

archduke
However, the top 10% already pay something like 70% of income taxes

Income taxes. But not of ALL taxes.
Payroll taxes, for one aren't included in this number.
And a dollar taxed, in whichever mechanism, is still a dollar taxed.
Here’s the rundown of the federal tax burden for the top 1 percent:
Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

the top 20 percent paid 86 percent of the income tax, but 42.9 percent of the payroll tax. Also, the Social Security portion of payroll tax applies only up to $106,800 in income. Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of earners paid 4.6 percent of federal income taxes in 2007, but 16.6 percent of payroll taxes.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

Part of the arguement about tax rates forgets one simple thing. The top 10% have most of the money... And continue to get a larger share

the inflation-adjusted average income for the bottom 90 percent fell by $1,170 between 2002 and 2008 (a 4 percent decrease); while the average income for those on the top 1 percent rose by $261,930 (a 30 percent increase).

source: http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-21-10inc.pdf

rickyp wrote:archduke
However, the top 10% already pay something like 70% of income taxes

Income taxes. But not of ALL taxes.
Payroll taxes, for one aren't included in this number.
And a dollar taxed, in whichever mechanism, is still a dollar taxed.

Really? Let me ask you a question, o Taxmaster: when one pays income taxes, does this give one a steady income when one turns 62 or 67?

Here's another question: who developed the payroll tax?

Part of the arguement about tax rates forgets one simple thing. The top 10% have most of the money... And continue to get a larger share

That was very well written!

Yeah, the "fairness" argument. So, maybe the government should just seize all wealth and set wages equally for all? That would be "fair."

Life isn't fair--as evidenced by the fact that a completely unqualified, unaccomplished, professional liar was elected President of the United States in 2008.

So I am not sure I understand your point Ricky.

The question of raising taxes on rich people is about raising their income tax, i.e. increasing the top tax rate and taxing dividend/Interest capital gains at the same rate of taxes. There have been no suggestions on increasing the amount of income taxed for SS (is it up to $100,000. Last I checked it was only the first $50,000 but that was a number of years ago)

So the people you want to raise income taxes on already pay 70+% of income taxes. How much more would you have them pay?

Sass. The top 50% of income earners pay about 95% of income taxes. You know what salary that equates to? Anybody making more then $50,000 a year.

Russ, I think the point is that the current tax system ends up with those on middle incomes paying a much larger percentage of their incomes in tax than the top earners do, which is widely perceived as being unfair. This isn't solely down to income tax rates of course. A much more important contributory factor is the fact that capital gains are taxed much more generously than earned incomes. Unfortunately it's very difficult to simply say that we should tax capital gains at the same rate as incomes, even though this would be the fairest system. I don't think it's beyind the bounds of possibility to at least make some effort in this direction though. In fact if we were to push up capital gains taxes we could probably afford to reduce income tax rates for everybody.

Sass. The top 50% of income earners pay about 95% of income taxes. You know what salary that equates to? Anybody making more then $50,000 a year.

Not entirely sure how this is an argument against my initial point. if the top 10% pay 75% of the income taxes then the next 40% pay only 20%. By any definition this means that the top 10% are dominating the wealth of the nation. When you consider that despite this burden of taxation they still typically end up paying a smaller proportion of their incomes in tax than people in the middle brackets it becomes even more remarkable.