- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM #696533May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM #695444
briansd1
Guest[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]
I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.[/quote]
Very well said, eavesdropper.
My neighbor in Philly got sued because the sidewalk in front of his house is not even. My first reaction was: “people should watch where they walk”.
May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM #695531Guest[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]
I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.[/quote]
Very well said, eavesdropper.
My neighbor in Philly got sued because the sidewalk in front of his house is not even. My first reaction was: “people should watch where they walk”.
May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM #696132Guest[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]
I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.[/quote]
Very well said, eavesdropper.
My neighbor in Philly got sued because the sidewalk in front of his house is not even. My first reaction was: “people should watch where they walk”.
May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM #696280Guest[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]
I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.[/quote]
Very well said, eavesdropper.
My neighbor in Philly got sued because the sidewalk in front of his house is not even. My first reaction was: “people should watch where they walk”.
May 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM #696633Guest[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]
I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.[/quote]
Very well said, eavesdropper.
My neighbor in Philly got sued because the sidewalk in front of his house is not even. My first reaction was: “people should watch where they walk”.
May 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM #695519CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.[/quote]
All, if not most, professional landlords are not the ones paying property taxes — their tenants are. Any LL who is running in the red every month is NOT a professional landlord — they are alligator owners, and many of them will end up losing their “investments” over time. It’s frightening to think that people are still buying “investment” properties where they are losing money every month. This mentality means the bubble is still very much inflated, IMHO.
May 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM #695606Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.[/quote]
All, if not most, professional landlords are not the ones paying property taxes — their tenants are. Any LL who is running in the red every month is NOT a professional landlord — they are alligator owners, and many of them will end up losing their “investments” over time. It’s frightening to think that people are still buying “investment” properties where they are losing money every month. This mentality means the bubble is still very much inflated, IMHO.
May 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM #696206Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.[/quote]
All, if not most, professional landlords are not the ones paying property taxes — their tenants are. Any LL who is running in the red every month is NOT a professional landlord — they are alligator owners, and many of them will end up losing their “investments” over time. It’s frightening to think that people are still buying “investment” properties where they are losing money every month. This mentality means the bubble is still very much inflated, IMHO.
May 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM #696355Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.[/quote]
All, if not most, professional landlords are not the ones paying property taxes — their tenants are. Any LL who is running in the red every month is NOT a professional landlord — they are alligator owners, and many of them will end up losing their “investments” over time. It’s frightening to think that people are still buying “investment” properties where they are losing money every month. This mentality means the bubble is still very much inflated, IMHO.
May 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM #696708Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.[/quote]
All, if not most, professional landlords are not the ones paying property taxes — their tenants are. Any LL who is running in the red every month is NOT a professional landlord — they are alligator owners, and many of them will end up losing their “investments” over time. It’s frightening to think that people are still buying “investment” properties where they are losing money every month. This mentality means the bubble is still very much inflated, IMHO.
May 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM #695524Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.[/quote]
CA renter, if the pensions did not depend on return on investment (capitalist system) and came 100% from employer and employee contributions, then the pensions would be a lot less generous.
Budgets would be more constrained and salaries lower.
If you worked out the math, you’d see that.[/quote]
Absolutely. And without the Fed’s inflationary policies (a capitalist system), we wouldn’t all need to rely on “investments” to fund our retirements, as our money would retain its purchasing power over time. One of the main reasons we have to earn a yield on investments and savings is because we are trying to “beat inflation” over many decades — an almost impossible task without lots of speculation, and the resulting bubbles (and busts).
May 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM #695611Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.[/quote]
CA renter, if the pensions did not depend on return on investment (capitalist system) and came 100% from employer and employee contributions, then the pensions would be a lot less generous.
Budgets would be more constrained and salaries lower.
If you worked out the math, you’d see that.[/quote]
Absolutely. And without the Fed’s inflationary policies (a capitalist system), we wouldn’t all need to rely on “investments” to fund our retirements, as our money would retain its purchasing power over time. One of the main reasons we have to earn a yield on investments and savings is because we are trying to “beat inflation” over many decades — an almost impossible task without lots of speculation, and the resulting bubbles (and busts).
May 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM #696211Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.[/quote]
CA renter, if the pensions did not depend on return on investment (capitalist system) and came 100% from employer and employee contributions, then the pensions would be a lot less generous.
Budgets would be more constrained and salaries lower.
If you worked out the math, you’d see that.[/quote]
Absolutely. And without the Fed’s inflationary policies (a capitalist system), we wouldn’t all need to rely on “investments” to fund our retirements, as our money would retain its purchasing power over time. One of the main reasons we have to earn a yield on investments and savings is because we are trying to “beat inflation” over many decades — an almost impossible task without lots of speculation, and the resulting bubbles (and busts).
May 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM #696360Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.[/quote]
CA renter, if the pensions did not depend on return on investment (capitalist system) and came 100% from employer and employee contributions, then the pensions would be a lot less generous.
Budgets would be more constrained and salaries lower.
If you worked out the math, you’d see that.[/quote]
Absolutely. And without the Fed’s inflationary policies (a capitalist system), we wouldn’t all need to rely on “investments” to fund our retirements, as our money would retain its purchasing power over time. One of the main reasons we have to earn a yield on investments and savings is because we are trying to “beat inflation” over many decades — an almost impossible task without lots of speculation, and the resulting bubbles (and busts).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.