dfoo
Well-known
If you want to look at a real financial disaster in the making look at China. The average property in Shanghai is priced about 20x annual earnings. The good news is that mortgage requirements are very high. 40-50% downpayment.
Congratulations to all Americans!
- Thread starter Olsen
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 590
- Views 22K
- Status
If you want to look at a real financial disaster in the making look at China. The average property in Shanghai is priced about 20x annual earnings. The good news is that mortgage requirements are very high. 40-50% downpayment.
dfoo
Well-known
Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that this changed.
1/3 more though? Protectionism at its best!
fergus
Well-known
Oh yes, "luxury car tax"... and we also have import duties!!!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A wonderful idea. In fact, it needn't even be that high if you included their non-earning children, wives, mistresses, etc. Wife and four children? $48,000 a year...
Or have you already figured that in?
(Note for the hard of thinking: 'irony' does not mean 'ferrous').
Cheers,
R.
fergus
Well-known
Actually; I think that such a high requirement for a deposit would keep prices reasonable.
Here in Oz, a 3% deposit (yes 3%) is considered a 'large' deposit.
LOL.
Sounds like a winner to me!
dfoo
Well-known
You'd think, but you'd be wrong. Prices have been rising at a very high rate for years now. Part of the reason for the raise actually were the banks building the deposit into the mortgage, and the constant flipping of properties due to the lack of capital gains tax. Note that these regulations are a moving target. See http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/20/content_11737335.htm for an article on the banking requirements from last year to get a feel for how things work.
Yes, I know all the details. 🙂 Curious why you call it 'cute?'
Over 20 years later, Byrd voted *against* the Voting Rights Act. So apparently he still wasn't completely done with his racist views...
It is really interesting that if you are Democrat, you get a free pass on racism. Trent Lott loses his Senate Minority leader position for comments at a birthday party about Strom Thurmond (essentially a segregationist Byrd clone) by saying "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
If that comment is considered racist because of Thurmond's past history as a Dixiecrat, then why is even having Byrd in the senate not equivalently revolting?
Especially when Byrd is quoted thusly: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." A tacit admission that he changed his views for political expediency.
If he were a Republican, do you think Byrd's apology would have simply been accepted? No, everyone would be calling for him to resign...
Compare this to when Harry Reid says "the country was ready to embrace a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' He gets a free pass.
So, perhaps you should wean yourself off of CNBC, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, Newsweek, Time, and all the other liberal media...after all, you can think for yourself, right. 🙂
Olsen
Well-known
the reason can't be the fund. Cost overrides on buildings, public particular, is common everywhere. My theory is that the cause is 'corruption'. Norway arranged Winter Olympics at Lillehammer in 94. It was supposed to cost 7 billion NOK. The final bill was 21 billion. The CEO of Norway's largest cement producer was set in as responsible for the process. Our new Oslo Opera, very much inspired by the Opera House of Sidney, was supposed to cost 1 b NOK: The final bill 1,8 B NOK. I can go on and on...
So, the fund is too small. It can only be corrected with higher taxes. The only natural thing would be to let the future pensionairs pay the bill. That they excepted a 'transfer of risk' is astonnishing. The financial sector tried to change the pensions for their employers, but the employees brought the case to the court. And won. The ex prime minister Howard got a very bad standing here in Norway after the Tampa affair. What an æsshole![/quote]
What you describe is very common today. Still I regard Australia among the few countries with a sound financial policy.
oftheherd
Veteran
I think that is one of the things that has gotten us into trouble. We used to save for our future: retirement, health needs, etc. Now we simply put things on the credit card. And of course the CC companies love it.
Everything now is quick money. CEOs will do anything for quick returns on stocks. What the long term effects on the company are is unimportant. CC companies raise rates, add fees, all done slowly and incrementally so it doesn't hurt all at once. Banks forced us to get CC and use them as ATM cards; to save money on hiring live tellers. Then the fees went up (even electronic fees between banks ???), but the initial investment had already been made and money saved on laid-off tellers. Have I left anybody out? ;-)
Olsen
Well-known
So well put.
I am an old man that will soon retire. But I also borrowed a lot of money to buy a home and all that. And had to endure interest rate of more than 15% during the late eighties. Then I understood that it was important to get out of the bank's grip and focus on getting the debt paid down. Glad I did. But I have been lucky. Through my years it was good business and growth all the way. And I lived in a country with a prudent government.
The most unfair about what is happening now is that future generations of nations like USA have to pay high taxes just to serve a huge public debt. Spent by others.
I think it is important for young people to understand that building a debt you are soon in dependence of the bank - and of full control over your economy.
40oz
...
Arguably, most people have no clue how rich "the rich" actually are. They practically take home everything.
Strange that you think a flat percentage tax is most fair. You clearly have issues addressing the fact that some people benefit far more than other from the environment our taxes finance.
Let's say a flat percentage tax is most fair. Everyone pays 20% of their income. So the person making $10/hr takes home $8/hr, and the person making $100,000/yr takes home $80K/yr. Seems fair on the surface. Let's say it costs a minimum of $15K per person for food and housing for one year. So the person making $10/hr, makes $20K a year, takes home $18K a year, and after paying for basic living expenses has at most $3K a year for medical insurance, tuition, childcare, etc. Under this ultimately fair system of yours, the guy making $100K takes home $80K, spends $15K minimum on basic living and has $65K left over to improve their life and the lives of their family. Every year.
It doesn't take a lot of mental power to see that the person starting out making $10/hr under your "fair" system is screwed into perpetuity. But it's all good as long as you personally are happy, right? It's all about you? Since you did everything on your own with no help from other people or society or the gov't, right? You are a self-made man who never had a hand-out and never benefitted from anything but your own sweat, right? Paid cash for your college education, earned delivering newspapers I bet.
And let's not forget the person making that $100K benefits from their 20% tax to a far greater degree than the person making $10/hr, ~$20K/yr. How can you possibly suggest that the person deriving a far greater benefit doesn't owe far more to pay for it?
One could argue that "the only fair system" is when everyone pay the same amount of money regardless of income.
Another definition of "fair" is everyone takes home the same, regardless of job or education or effort.
You can come up with any number of definitons of "fair," but at the end of the day most are only reasonable to the person that stands to benefit.
I think most reasonable people would agree that "fair" is when people pay according to the benefit they derive.
I don't want to live in a society where "fair" is defined by greedy, shortsighted, selfish, and ignorant individuals who define fair as whatever lets them keep the most money. And not surprisingly, I'm not alone.
Olsen
Well-known
40oz,
You have explained the effect of a 'flat tax' very good. One of the most important functions of a democracy is to decide 'the budget' and 'who's gonna pay'.
What we see a lot here in Europe is conservative parties playing on anti immigration feelings and race hate. By this persuading voters who otherwise would not prosper from voting conservative to vote for them. Typically persuaded is the young lorry driver with an income of less than 30.000 € that would be just in the bracket of income that will have to carry the heaviest tax burden, relatively speaking.
You have explained the effect of a 'flat tax' very good. One of the most important functions of a democracy is to decide 'the budget' and 'who's gonna pay'.
What we see a lot here in Europe is conservative parties playing on anti immigration feelings and race hate. By this persuading voters who otherwise would not prosper from voting conservative to vote for them. Typically persuaded is the young lorry driver with an income of less than 30.000 € that would be just in the bracket of income that will have to carry the heaviest tax burden, relatively speaking.
40oz
...
You quoted a letter Byrd wrote 66 years ago, intentionally? I think you were hoping nobody knew that was in 1944. Either that or you're a liar. Which is it? Because I know you didn't seriously think everyone knew it was from 1944, or that it was even remotely relevant in 2010.
Nobody is giving Byrd a free pass. You're not.
Byrd has, however, admitted he was wrong. He has admitted he made mistakes. Yes, he even tells people to stay away from the KKK. What an evil, evil man :/
Trent Lott resigned his position because of his recent comments, not a letter he wrote 15 years before he had even been elected. And as long as West Virginia is allowed to choose their own representation, and as long as Senator Byrd is elected, it's none of our business. Or are you suggesting we suspend freedom of speech for Democrats you don't like? Because that's what it sounds like.
You are bitter that a Republican felt he could not continue to serve his constituents or his party in light of controversy he inadvertantly caused, and so in reprisal you wish to remove a guy for a letter he wrote during World War 2?
I'm surprised you suggest I stop informing myself through multiple outlets. You call them "liberal," but again that's you just parroting what you've been taught by your masters in conservative talk media. I'm going to continue to inform myself through as many avenues as possible.
You know damn well a gov't cannot cut taxes and increase revenue any more than a business can cut prices and continue to see profits. You know very well that progressive taxation is far more fair than flat percentage rates or single set "membership dues."
Why do you pretend that the logic that lets you function in daily life somehow changes when it comes to gov't? Why do you let party affiliation obscure reality? Just because a guy calls himself a conservative or a Republican doesn't make him more intelligent or automatically make his ideas better than someone else's.
I'm in favor of back and forth. I'm in favor of disagreement on issues because I know I don't have all the answers. But I look things up. I do the math. I try to verify statements before declaring them as fact. And I consider the source when I read an article. Just because it's printed in the Wall Street Journal doesn't make it automatically beyond indictment, and it certainly doesn't mean I should suspend my critical thinking faculties.
What you call the "liberal media" is fundamentally different than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the rest of conservative talk media. When I read my local newspaper, the articles don't start from the premise that I really don't know what is going on. That's a fundamental different spot than people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and all of Fox News come from. Those guys make the assumption that I'm an idiot who needs to be told "the way things are." It's their basic premise. And a certain class of people appreciates being treated that way. The paternal attitude makes them feel warm and loved.
It just makes me feel irritated and insulted to be told "I don't know." Especially when two minutes of looking up facts would clarify and put the lie to what they are insisting is the case.
But go get your news from whatever tit tastes best, it's a free country.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
That is why there should be a high personal exemption, to ensure the low wage earners can still eat! A complex tax code benefits no-one. A flat tax is simple, easy to verify and not subject to abuse. What you perhaps don't realize is that very aggressive taxation of high earners don't work as you'd expect. There are many loopholes in the tax code (deliberately I might add; who do you thinks drafts the tax code? The rich), which the rich take advantage of. If you are poor you don't benefit enough to take advantage of them, and many you cannot effectively administer yourself anyway.
DNG
Film Friendly
This is why there is tax slope... as you earn more, you pay more...now, the %g's may be need a revamping and the poor, who earn not enough to pay for basic living expenses, should pay no tax at all. Each state should determine the minimum living income for their economic areas (maybe too hard to do honestly though). In my area of Indiana, a family of 3 need to earn a take home of 21k to live in a moderately priced Apt in a safe area, and pay for food, gas, cloths for the kid, utilities, rent, the minimum for a lower middle class family... that is a gross of 24k a year... well above min wage, Almost Double... A person would need to get $15.00 an hour job to have a single earner in a family of 3, OR, both parents work at $7.50hr and pay a center over $400.00 a month to watch the kid or someone needs to work part time to be home when the kid get home from school. Which is where most families are today...So, if I had that 20% of tax back, I could afford to pay $300.00 a month on heath care without sacrificing a basic need. No I couldn't --- $333.00 a month Major Med is NON Existent for family coverage, in fact, you need around $700.00 a month just for basic coverage w/o Major Med! Which is real close to the rent payment!
If I could pay 5% over 20% in Tax, I'd be all for it too... OR, if I were rich, and Pay 25% over 38%, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat! So the rich LIKE the Flat Tax because the % of tax they pay IS LOWER, But to the Mid Class, It is MORE TAX....(20% to 25%), FAIR--- HA... BS**t. Same old tune........ The Mid Class get higher taxes against income, and the rich pay less against income.. They still pay more $$$, BUT, it doesn't affect their lifestyle at all, While the Mid Class pay more than they normally do, and that few thousand more a year means they have give up some basic need, or scale down on something like food, (the 1st thing to put less money into..It's the easiest!).
I don't know the answer.... if I did, I'd be in DC and writing a bill to put a vote to it.
The next thing to fix, is our tax structure.... I can hear the rich bi***ing already....😛
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
I did some research, and believe it or not, a modern politician tried to enact a poll tax! You wouldn't believe who tried: the beloved Thatcher. Who would have thought she would try to screw the populace?
Anyways, it didn't quite work out like she expected, and in fact, it brought about her downfall. You'd think the proles would have embraced such an utterly equal and fair form of taxation...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alcanephotography/931843442/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bolshie/3570553196/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akinloch/171431280/
dfoo
Well-known
dfoo
Well-known
BTW, I find it funny that you are arguing against the flat tax because it hurts the poor. What harms the poor the most is sales tax! Then there is property tax. That doesn't harm the poor that much because most cannot afford decent property. What that harms is the middle class. The rich, after all, have no problem in paying.
DNG
Film Friendly
If the Mid Class payed a lower flat tax than they pay now as a standard tax, and the rich paid a standard flat rate... I may be for it.... I can't see paying a higher tax than I pay now if it where changed to a flat tax. The rich can afford it. The % of the tax against their income is much smaller in dollars. Yes it is a higher %, but when you have Millions, a few 100K is not going to bankrupt you. Plus, If this country made this income available to you by your talent, you should give back to the country that made you rich! And be proud of it...I am not rich, and I pay my taxes, and when I see new roads and public schools being built, I am proud that I could help...however little I paid... I did help, I'm not finding ways to not pay taxes...Who will pay for the needs of the public without taxes?? Private enterprise ???? Ha....They have no obligation, and the extreme right wanting to rid the IRS and the Government won't pay up either if they have their way...It all a big scam to horde their money! As they say... Let them pay their own way!
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
