bailing out robert toll

[Rich Toscano]

davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich

[SD Realtor]

What irks me most about the entire premise is this presumption that others will not take the opportunity given the vacancy generated by lack of business x, y, or z being present. To me it does not matter if it is banking or home building or the homeowner in distress. To me these voids would have been filled in one way, shape or form over time. That there could have been a controlled form of chaos but that the outcome would have been a much much stronger vibrant economy with a stable base. Toll would not have been out on the street and the possible construction workers would have found work.

I don’t drink the end of the world cool aid that we would have all been in tent cities if we didn’t take these steps in 2007 and 2008. I am sorry for that. The absolute flushing of trillions of dollars is breatheless to me. Again I believe a fraction of that could have been used to support essential infrastructure that would have needed it if the unwinding would have been allowed to occur.

Instead we have continued plundering and pummelling of taxpayer dollars that MUST BE MAINTAINED until the ship is righted which will not happen for quite awhile.

[SD Realtor]

What irks me most about the entire premise is this presumption that others will not take the opportunity given the vacancy generated by lack of business x, y, or z being present. To me it does not matter if it is banking or home building or the homeowner in distress. To me these voids would have been filled in one way, shape or form over time. That there could have been a controlled form of chaos but that the outcome would have been a much much stronger vibrant economy with a stable base. Toll would not have been out on the street and the possible construction workers would have found work.

I don’t drink the end of the world cool aid that we would have all been in tent cities if we didn’t take these steps in 2007 and 2008. I am sorry for that. The absolute flushing of trillions of dollars is breatheless to me. Again I believe a fraction of that could have been used to support essential infrastructure that would have needed it if the unwinding would have been allowed to occur.

Instead we have continued plundering and pummelling of taxpayer dollars that MUST BE MAINTAINED until the ship is righted which will not happen for quite awhile.

[SD Realtor]

What irks me most about the entire premise is this presumption that others will not take the opportunity given the vacancy generated by lack of business x, y, or z being present. To me it does not matter if it is banking or home building or the homeowner in distress. To me these voids would have been filled in one way, shape or form over time. That there could have been a controlled form of chaos but that the outcome would have been a much much stronger vibrant economy with a stable base. Toll would not have been out on the street and the possible construction workers would have found work.

I don’t drink the end of the world cool aid that we would have all been in tent cities if we didn’t take these steps in 2007 and 2008. I am sorry for that. The absolute flushing of trillions of dollars is breatheless to me. Again I believe a fraction of that could have been used to support essential infrastructure that would have needed it if the unwinding would have been allowed to occur.

Instead we have continued plundering and pummelling of taxpayer dollars that MUST BE MAINTAINED until the ship is righted which will not happen for quite awhile.

[SD Realtor]

What irks me most about the entire premise is this presumption that others will not take the opportunity given the vacancy generated by lack of business x, y, or z being present. To me it does not matter if it is banking or home building or the homeowner in distress. To me these voids would have been filled in one way, shape or form over time. That there could have been a controlled form of chaos but that the outcome would have been a much much stronger vibrant economy with a stable base. Toll would not have been out on the street and the possible construction workers would have found work.

I don’t drink the end of the world cool aid that we would have all been in tent cities if we didn’t take these steps in 2007 and 2008. I am sorry for that. The absolute flushing of trillions of dollars is breatheless to me. Again I believe a fraction of that could have been used to support essential infrastructure that would have needed it if the unwinding would have been allowed to occur.

Instead we have continued plundering and pummelling of taxpayer dollars that MUST BE MAINTAINED until the ship is righted which will not happen for quite awhile.

[SD Realtor]

What irks me most about the entire premise is this presumption that others will not take the opportunity given the vacancy generated by lack of business x, y, or z being present. To me it does not matter if it is banking or home building or the homeowner in distress. To me these voids would have been filled in one way, shape or form over time. That there could have been a controlled form of chaos but that the outcome would have been a much much stronger vibrant economy with a stable base. Toll would not have been out on the street and the possible construction workers would have found work.

I don’t drink the end of the world cool aid that we would have all been in tent cities if we didn’t take these steps in 2007 and 2008. I am sorry for that. The absolute flushing of trillions of dollars is breatheless to me. Again I believe a fraction of that could have been used to support essential infrastructure that would have needed it if the unwinding would have been allowed to occur.

Instead we have continued plundering and pummelling of taxpayer dollars that MUST BE MAINTAINED until the ship is righted which will not happen for quite awhile.

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]davelj, I’m not suggesting that anyone would want to switch places with Robert Toll.

My point is that this is another example where when the times were good, the less cautious benefitted… and now that times are bad, their losses are subsidized.

Agreed, nowhere near as egregious as the TARP but this is clearly (to me anyway) another example of rewarding failure and encouraging risky behavior (whether it works or not).

rich[/quote]

I’m going to nitpick just a bit on this point.

If, in fact, Toll Brothers’ outsized profits in the “good years” were a result of being “less cautious,” and these profits were the ones that were taxed in the earlier periods… then when the same “less cautious” behavior led to outsized losses… what’s wrong with the tax impact being, essentially, neutralized? My point is… why should the Treasury benefit from Toll Brothers’ risk-taking in the good years, but then cap Toll Brothers’ benefit (or recapture) in the bad years?

And this doesn’t just apply to Toll Brothers. If reckless risk-taking makes the Treasury richer during good times, why shouldn’t it have to return those riches in the bad times? Otherwise, one could argue that it’s the government (that is, We the People) that wants all of the upside from risk-taking (from a tax perspective), but none of the downside.

(On a separate note, Rich, I’m eating a chicken donor from the kebab shop right now… and it’s garlicy deliciousness is soaking into my pores. Yummm.)

[Rich Toscano]

Mmmm… garlic.

I see where you are coming from. But, it’s not that the treasury is getting all the upside from risk-taking and none of the downside. They are getting both: tax revenues when the risk pays off, and none when it fails.

I understand that they can go back and say, basically, we’re going to widen the timeframe from 1 year to 5 years. But that is pretty arbitrary, since the timeframe has always been 1 year, and it’s 1 year for individuals and for cautious businesses in good times. The net effect is that it’s only going to be done in a time and manner that disproportionately helps the “high flyers.”

I should add that they aren’t commensurately cutting back spending. They are spending the same (actually far more) while reducing tax revenues, meaning that they will have to make up for it in the future via higher taxes (on producers) or via inflation (punishing savers). So again, it’s disproportionately taking from the prudent and competent and giving to the reckless and less competent. It’s the old capitalist argument; resources should be marshalled by those who are most competent to use them effectively in the long term, and this has the opposite effect.

All that said I acknowledge that this is small time compared to some of the shenanigans that they have undertaken. It’s just particularly comical and backwards in how it manifests itself with the builders.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Mmmm… garlic.

I see where you are coming from. But, it’s not that the treasury is getting all the upside from risk-taking and none of the downside. They are getting both: tax revenues when the risk pays off, and none when it fails.

I understand that they can go back and say, basically, we’re going to widen the timeframe from 1 year to 5 years. But that is pretty arbitrary, since the timeframe has always been 1 year, and it’s 1 year for individuals and for cautious businesses in good times. The net effect is that it’s only going to be done in a time and manner that disproportionately helps the “high flyers.”

I should add that they aren’t commensurately cutting back spending. They are spending the same (actually far more) while reducing tax revenues, meaning that they will have to make up for it in the future via higher taxes (on producers) or via inflation (punishing savers). So again, it’s disproportionately taking from the prudent and competent and giving to the reckless and less competent. It’s the old capitalist argument; resources should be marshalled by those who are most competent to use them effectively in the long term, and this has the opposite effect.

All that said I acknowledge that this is small time compared to some of the shenanigans that they have undertaken. It’s just particularly comical and backwards in how it manifests itself with the builders.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Mmmm… garlic.

I see where you are coming from. But, it’s not that the treasury is getting all the upside from risk-taking and none of the downside. They are getting both: tax revenues when the risk pays off, and none when it fails.

I understand that they can go back and say, basically, we’re going to widen the timeframe from 1 year to 5 years. But that is pretty arbitrary, since the timeframe has always been 1 year, and it’s 1 year for individuals and for cautious businesses in good times. The net effect is that it’s only going to be done in a time and manner that disproportionately helps the “high flyers.”

I should add that they aren’t commensurately cutting back spending. They are spending the same (actually far more) while reducing tax revenues, meaning that they will have to make up for it in the future via higher taxes (on producers) or via inflation (punishing savers). So again, it’s disproportionately taking from the prudent and competent and giving to the reckless and less competent. It’s the old capitalist argument; resources should be marshalled by those who are most competent to use them effectively in the long term, and this has the opposite effect.

All that said I acknowledge that this is small time compared to some of the shenanigans that they have undertaken. It’s just particularly comical and backwards in how it manifests itself with the builders.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Mmmm… garlic.

I see where you are coming from. But, it’s not that the treasury is getting all the upside from risk-taking and none of the downside. They are getting both: tax revenues when the risk pays off, and none when it fails.

I understand that they can go back and say, basically, we’re going to widen the timeframe from 1 year to 5 years. But that is pretty arbitrary, since the timeframe has always been 1 year, and it’s 1 year for individuals and for cautious businesses in good times. The net effect is that it’s only going to be done in a time and manner that disproportionately helps the “high flyers.”

I should add that they aren’t commensurately cutting back spending. They are spending the same (actually far more) while reducing tax revenues, meaning that they will have to make up for it in the future via higher taxes (on producers) or via inflation (punishing savers). So again, it’s disproportionately taking from the prudent and competent and giving to the reckless and less competent. It’s the old capitalist argument; resources should be marshalled by those who are most competent to use them effectively in the long term, and this has the opposite effect.

All that said I acknowledge that this is small time compared to some of the shenanigans that they have undertaken. It’s just particularly comical and backwards in how it manifests itself with the builders.

Rich

[Author]

Posts