State Budgets: Day of Reckoning

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie][quote=SK in CV] It is no more than a failed theory. [/quote]

Sorry I lost you on the concept. So many in government tend to rule out ideas before they take the time to understand them. It really comes down to politics and power rather than directly solving a problem.

Have a good holiday![/quote]

Of course you lost me on the concept. That’s what idealogues do. Ideas they don’t like, they dismiss as irrelevant. They dismiss actual facts in favor of politics. When Laffer first proposed his theory, I questioned its validity. As a trained economist, that’s the proper thing to do with an unproven, untested theory. I didn’t dismiss it. Reagan’s tax reform included so many other good things, many of which have survived and proven to be good, it was worth a try. It failed. And then failed again.

And good holidays to you.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable.

I believe that the misallocation of resources in government is as much in salaries and pensions as in giveaway sweetheart deals to private contractors who pocket the profits.

The bankers’ excesses and bailouts went to a small number of people at the very top.[/quote]

One of the things you’ll learn when you start getting some experience in real estate investing (and when doing any business really) is that maintenance costs do not contribute much to your profit line.

If you have a property and choose to pay more in repair, maintenance, and other costs, it will not increase your profit margin. In fact, it will actually harm your property’s value because many lenders will look at your property and its costs and will conclude that you spend too much money on maintenance and other costs and will deem you a bad credit risk.

However, if you choose to make upgrades in your property (for example, adding another bedroom, or expanding the living room), these improvements will allow you to ask for more rent, and will possibly make you more profit.

Choosing to pay more in maintenance costs also lessens the amount of money available for capital improvements.

Try to think of government that way.

In case you can’t figure it out, pensions are a maintenance cost.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this.

If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable.

I believe that the misallocation of resources in government is as much in salaries and pensions as in giveaway sweetheart deals to private contractors who pocket the profits.

The bankers’ excesses and bailouts went to a small number of people at the very top.[/quote]

One of the things you’ll learn when you start getting some experience in real estate investing (and when doing any business really) is that maintenance costs do not contribute much to your profit line.

If you have a property and choose to pay more in repair, maintenance, and other costs, it will not increase your profit margin. In fact, it will actually harm your property’s value because many lenders will look at your property and its costs and will conclude that you spend too much money on maintenance and other costs and will deem you a bad credit risk.

However, if you choose to make upgrades in your property (for example, adding another bedroom, or expanding the living room), these improvements will allow you to ask for more rent, and will possibly make you more profit.

Choosing to pay more in maintenance costs also lessens the amount of money available for capital improvements.

Try to think of government that way.

In case you can’t figure it out, pensions are a maintenance cost.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this.

If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable.

I believe that the misallocation of resources in government is as much in salaries and pensions as in giveaway sweetheart deals to private contractors who pocket the profits.

The bankers’ excesses and bailouts went to a small number of people at the very top.[/quote]

One of the things you’ll learn when you start getting some experience in real estate investing (and when doing any business really) is that maintenance costs do not contribute much to your profit line.

If you have a property and choose to pay more in repair, maintenance, and other costs, it will not increase your profit margin. In fact, it will actually harm your property’s value because many lenders will look at your property and its costs and will conclude that you spend too much money on maintenance and other costs and will deem you a bad credit risk.

However, if you choose to make upgrades in your property (for example, adding another bedroom, or expanding the living room), these improvements will allow you to ask for more rent, and will possibly make you more profit.

Choosing to pay more in maintenance costs also lessens the amount of money available for capital improvements.

Try to think of government that way.

In case you can’t figure it out, pensions are a maintenance cost.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this.

If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable.

I believe that the misallocation of resources in government is as much in salaries and pensions as in giveaway sweetheart deals to private contractors who pocket the profits.

The bankers’ excesses and bailouts went to a small number of people at the very top.[/quote]

One of the things you’ll learn when you start getting some experience in real estate investing (and when doing any business really) is that maintenance costs do not contribute much to your profit line.

If you have a property and choose to pay more in repair, maintenance, and other costs, it will not increase your profit margin. In fact, it will actually harm your property’s value because many lenders will look at your property and its costs and will conclude that you spend too much money on maintenance and other costs and will deem you a bad credit risk.

However, if you choose to make upgrades in your property (for example, adding another bedroom, or expanding the living room), these improvements will allow you to ask for more rent, and will possibly make you more profit.

Choosing to pay more in maintenance costs also lessens the amount of money available for capital improvements.

Try to think of government that way.

In case you can’t figure it out, pensions are a maintenance cost.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this.

If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable.

I believe that the misallocation of resources in government is as much in salaries and pensions as in giveaway sweetheart deals to private contractors who pocket the profits.

The bankers’ excesses and bailouts went to a small number of people at the very top.[/quote]

One of the things you’ll learn when you start getting some experience in real estate investing (and when doing any business really) is that maintenance costs do not contribute much to your profit line.

If you have a property and choose to pay more in repair, maintenance, and other costs, it will not increase your profit margin. In fact, it will actually harm your property’s value because many lenders will look at your property and its costs and will conclude that you spend too much money on maintenance and other costs and will deem you a bad credit risk.

However, if you choose to make upgrades in your property (for example, adding another bedroom, or expanding the living room), these improvements will allow you to ask for more rent, and will possibly make you more profit.

Choosing to pay more in maintenance costs also lessens the amount of money available for capital improvements.

Try to think of government that way.

In case you can’t figure it out, pensions are a maintenance cost.[/quote]

Have to disagree with this.

If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And AFSCME fires off an immediate rejoinder, blaming the Wall Street bankers: http://www.afscme.org/press/33924.cfm

Ah, I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]

How can you disagree with what they’ve said?

Yes, there has been class warfare for a long, long time, but it’s the rich who have started it, and who seek to cause the greatest damage.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And AFSCME fires off an immediate rejoinder, blaming the Wall Street bankers: http://www.afscme.org/press/33924.cfm

Ah, I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]

How can you disagree with what they’ve said?

Yes, there has been class warfare for a long, long time, but it’s the rich who have started it, and who seek to cause the greatest damage.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And AFSCME fires off an immediate rejoinder, blaming the Wall Street bankers: http://www.afscme.org/press/33924.cfm

Ah, I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]

How can you disagree with what they’ve said?

Yes, there has been class warfare for a long, long time, but it’s the rich who have started it, and who seek to cause the greatest damage.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And AFSCME fires off an immediate rejoinder, blaming the Wall Street bankers: http://www.afscme.org/press/33924.cfm

Ah, I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]

How can you disagree with what they’ve said?

Yes, there has been class warfare for a long, long time, but it’s the rich who have started it, and who seek to cause the greatest damage.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And AFSCME fires off an immediate rejoinder, blaming the Wall Street bankers: http://www.afscme.org/press/33924.cfm

Ah, I love the smell of class warfare in the morning! Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]

How can you disagree with what they’ve said?

Yes, there has been class warfare for a long, long time, but it’s the rich who have started it, and who seek to cause the greatest damage.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable. [/quote]

Is this a sarcastic comment? All that spending on salaries and pensions has to come from somewhere.

And I’ll tell you where it comes from: people who produce.

For their lives to become more enjoyable someone else’s had to become inordinately less enjoyable.[/quote]

All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.

At least if the money goes to the many, it will be cycled back through the economy without any debt offset; whereas when it goes to the very wealthy who tend to “invest” this money rather than spend it into the economy (no guarantee these “investments” are spent here, or that they benefit our society in any way), they not only expect to get that money back, then intend to get it back *with interest* that also comes from productive people.

There is no way you can argue that putting money into the hands of a concentrated few is better than putting it into the hands of the many — who tend to be far more productive than the very wealthy.

There is no correlation between great wealth and productivity. The very wealthy tend to insert themselves in the middle of other, legitimate transactions and skim a portion from each of those transactions.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable. [/quote]

Is this a sarcastic comment? All that spending on salaries and pensions has to come from somewhere.

And I’ll tell you where it comes from: people who produce.

For their lives to become more enjoyable someone else’s had to become inordinately less enjoyable.[/quote]

All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.

At least if the money goes to the many, it will be cycled back through the economy without any debt offset; whereas when it goes to the very wealthy who tend to “invest” this money rather than spend it into the economy (no guarantee these “investments” are spent here, or that they benefit our society in any way), they not only expect to get that money back, then intend to get it back *with interest* that also comes from productive people.

There is no way you can argue that putting money into the hands of a concentrated few is better than putting it into the hands of the many — who tend to be far more productive than the very wealthy.

There is no correlation between great wealth and productivity. The very wealthy tend to insert themselves in the middle of other, legitimate transactions and skim a portion from each of those transactions.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable. [/quote]

Is this a sarcastic comment? All that spending on salaries and pensions has to come from somewhere.

And I’ll tell you where it comes from: people who produce.

For their lives to become more enjoyable someone else’s had to become inordinately less enjoyable.[/quote]

All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.

At least if the money goes to the many, it will be cycled back through the economy without any debt offset; whereas when it goes to the very wealthy who tend to “invest” this money rather than spend it into the economy (no guarantee these “investments” are spent here, or that they benefit our society in any way), they not only expect to get that money back, then intend to get it back *with interest* that also comes from productive people.

There is no way you can argue that putting money into the hands of a concentrated few is better than putting it into the hands of the many — who tend to be far more productive than the very wealthy.

There is no correlation between great wealth and productivity. The very wealthy tend to insert themselves in the middle of other, legitimate transactions and skim a portion from each of those transactions.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable. [/quote]

Is this a sarcastic comment? All that spending on salaries and pensions has to come from somewhere.

And I’ll tell you where it comes from: people who produce.

For their lives to become more enjoyable someone else’s had to become inordinately less enjoyable.[/quote]

All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.

At least if the money goes to the many, it will be cycled back through the economy without any debt offset; whereas when it goes to the very wealthy who tend to “invest” this money rather than spend it into the economy (no guarantee these “investments” are spent here, or that they benefit our society in any way), they not only expect to get that money back, then intend to get it back *with interest* that also comes from productive people.

There is no way you can argue that putting money into the hands of a concentrated few is better than putting it into the hands of the many — who tend to be far more productive than the very wealthy.

There is no correlation between great wealth and productivity. The very wealthy tend to insert themselves in the middle of other, legitimate transactions and skim a portion from each of those transactions.

[Author]

Posts