San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

Step 1 is a necessary condition, but step 2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to earn an extra $250K. We also need:

Step 3: Romney wins in November

:-)

Your math does not work.. 250,000 is 25% of 1mil.

Try some algebra on the following statement(solving for effective tax rate before and after. There are two unknowns and two expressions):

under Romney’s proposal, people with $1 million or more in annual cash income will receive an average tax cut of $250,535. Those in the millionaire category will receive an 11.8 percent increase in after-tax income

To get $250,000 in savings, you have to made a heck of a lot more then 1Mil.

I don't care about other people but I know I'll be "making" more money if Romney win.

I think a key word in there is "average."

I don't know exactly how they define the millionaire category (lower bound is $1 million, upper bound is unknown.)

But I didn't post this to provide a math exercise.

I even tried using the values they provide for the next boundary up.. (I think it was incomes 500k-1m)and its still goofy.

It would also be nice and more honest if they say that for incomes averaging Xmil the average tax cut would be $250,535 instead of choosing to correlate the lower bound of an arbitrary income boundary with the average of an unbounded range. Though note that if you use their income of $2,868,534 getting a tax cut of $725,716.. the numbers still don't work (725,716 is 25.3% of 2,868534).

It also brings this saying to mind:
http://www.fortunewatch.com/the-obama-ta...

Looking at the cuts, it would be nice to know which ones of Romney's cuts causes the 'rich' to have the greatest gain on their analysis. I suspect it is elimination of AMT. Most of the other changes are income limited.

True.. but math often can reveal who is and isn't 'wearing clothes' on their statements... and is in some ways 'core' to Piggington.

Is it fair to say people would "earn" extra money, or just have less taken from them?

I agree the numbers and how they arrive at them are a bit odd.

It's mainly due to the way they are approaching the question, since it's about verifying Obama's original claim about millionaires.

My post was also a reference to an old Steve Martin sketch on how to be a millionaire:

"First, get a million dollars ..."

Rich - I thought there were no political cheerleading threads allowed here?

Hi Markmax, how are you doing? How's Ron Paul and how's your Zygna shares doing?

Rich, I'm sure if you look in your server logs, and look at the IP address of gregw9898, you'll have a match with markmax... In fact, the style is exactly the same... I wouldn't be surprised if you get a ron paul post soon from him.

I did notice that Ron Paul won 3 more states over the weekend and now has won 8 states. He wants to slash spending, balance the budget and abolish the income tax back to 1913 levels. I think you would save much more voting for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Infact he just tallied about2\ enough in a national poll to get into the debates as a 3rd party candidate. He needs 15% and got 13%.

Rich, Told ya!

deleted

Which side is this thread "cheerleading" for?

You know, markmax, I was about to re-explain what I had written to you, and to explain why the above quote completely missed the point of what I wrote... but why bother.

BTW I find it hilarious that you thought anyone would be fooled into thinking that gregw9898 was an entirely different person who argued in the same way, about exactly the same stuff, and repeatedly used the word "GOV."

The claim is make 1m then vote for Romney and make 250k. Someone corrected and said Romney has to actually win. But, that's not the end of it. He has to actually implement his proposal too. What is the saying...there is a difference between saying "eat an apple a day" and actually eating it. I guarantee you even after the first two conditions are satisfied you'll be still waiting for your 250k (and I doubt it ever arrives).

If you have no job.... support the venture capitalist.

Somehow the money will trickle down, and pretty soon, you'll join the ranks of the rich.

Mitt Romney holds significant advantages over President Obama among white voters who are struggling financially and buffeted by job loss, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/r...

Well, I don't think either romney or obama are gonna make any difference.

Well, saying that "they are all the same" is intellectually lazy and over simplifies things. It's for people who have run out of ideas.

I don't like every policy from Romney but I love how he backing voucher system for education. That alone got my vote. I hope he win and I hope he'll truly reform our education system.

Doesn't that strike you as big brother imposing a Washington solution to the local school districts?

Local schools are mostly funded by local dollars. But the Federal government would then, with the threat of losing Federal funds, force local school districts to implement a Federal solution.

What about the Ron Paul type libertarianism you espouse?

This link has the 35-page pdf of the Romney plan. I'm not in a hurry to read it because I don't have kids.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/20...

On a local level, how would parents in La Jolla and Carmel Valley feel when their schools are flooded with voucher kids from lower-income neighborhoods?

What he propose isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's definitely a big step in the right direction. To give parents an option to send their kids anywhere they want is a good first step. Even if it's only for low income kids.
The whole reason why I like it is, money follow the student and put the parents in the driver seat. Sound like a bottom up solution to me.

He's also for increase charter schools and the money can be used for some private schools as well. Which mean, there would be more private and charter school options. LJ and CV might be great compare to other public school, but it ain't at the top when you count in private schools and Charter schools. If the money is extended to me, I'm not gonna waste that money and send my kid to LJHS or TPHS or Canyon Crest Academy. I'd use that money to supplement the cost of La Jolla Country Day or Bishops. I'm sure if you make vouchers available to all, those who live in LJ/CV would probably do the same.

WRT to you Ron Paul jab, unlike some people, I don't blindly follow any party line.

From the Romney plan:

Allow Low Income And Special Needs Students To Choose Which School To Attend. Make Title I and IDEA funds portable so that eligible students can choose which school to attend and bring funding with them. This plan will allow the student to choose from any district or public charter school, or a private school where permitted by state law, or to use funds toward a tutoring provider or digital course.

AN, the Feds can only compel local schools through the use of Federal funds (Title I and IDEA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_I#Tit...
It's not like everyone will get a voucher. So no, you will not get a "check" that you can use to pay part of Bishops' tuition for your kids.

It takes time for new schools to be built and existing schools to close. If low income kids were to suddenly get vouchers to any school they want, they would immediately apply to be best schools, and move down the ladder in terms of desirability. The "good" schools will have to allocate a certain number of seats to the voucher kids and deny admission to the kids who live in the neighborhood. Remember that classroom seats are limited so allowing portability will require a certain mandate to admit voucher kids.

Since you're such a fan of supply and demand, you probably see that "bad" schools would close and "good" schools would thrive. That would create some kind of busing requirement to the "good" schools which would generally be located in "good" neighborhoods.

AN, I'm just looking at the implications of vouchers. I do like the idea of vouchers and I think that they would be of tremendous benefit to low-income kids from families who value education. Kids would benefit if they had family members who are involved and can make the sacrifices necessary to drive them to and from schools far away from their residences.

But I'm sure that parents in Carmel Valley would not appreciate kids from East San Diego attending schools in their neighborhoods.

Very interesting article on the Romney education plan:

The proposal, by contrast, has heartened some liberal education reformers who’ve long championed open enrollment that focuses on public schools. “If various caveats are satisfied, that would put Romney to the left of Obama on public school choice,” says Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. But that’s a big “if,” he cautions.

For example, under open enrollment, low-income students would need funding for commuting to schools outside of their district. But the Romney campaign says his plan will include no new funding for education, and Romney himself has endorsed the Ryan budget, which makes draconian cuts to education spending overall, though it doesn’t single out K-12 for specific reductions. So it’s unclear how Romney would address the transportation issue without additional government spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...

Brian, I know I don't qualify. I did state that. But I also stated that this is a good step in the right direction. I don't expect Romney to go from 0-100 with one proposal.

The problem you're describing about a flood of low income students is only there at the beginning. Overtime, there won't be any flood. New Charter schools will pop up. So are online schools.

I personally want to buy-in from the parents. Which mean, they would have to transport their own kids. I would use bussing as a business. If parents don't have the time to drive their own kids, they can pay the cost to bus their kids.

I'm sure some parents in CV would not appreciate kids from East San Diego attending schools in their neighborhoods, but all I can say is, too bad. I'll point them to Preuss school, which have 100% low income students, yet they're doing better than all public school in SD county.

AN, I agree with you. A voucher program for low-income kids (Title I and IDEA) would be good. It would allow those disadvantaged kids to access an education that is currently out of reach.

Even without additional funding for transportation, kids who can commute to better schools would benefit.

I don't support the Romney plan as is, but with certain caveats, it can work well.

By what measure?

They already do, brian, and have done so for many years. They even take the trolley up to SD in the early AMs from the San Ysidro border crossing after they walked across, likely using a relative's address for attendance purposes ;=} Some are actually Americans (not of Hispanic origin) who live in MX solely because it's cheaper.

IIRC, students up to age 22 (with a student ID card) can buy MTS bus passes (incl trolley) for $32 month. Hundreds, if not thousands of VEEP and CHOICE kids in SD and zone transfers in South County take the city bus to school. It's cheaper than gas and lets the working parents focus on keeping their jobs. I myself have rode with busloads of them when my car was in the shop.

Graduation rate and percentage of college bound graduates. All that from a school that have 100% of its students getting subsidized lunch (i.e. low income).