[an]

Both Mohamed A. El-Erian and Bill Gross are very smart guys and predicted the macro economic pretty correctly over the last 5+ years, yet they were wrong on their market call. My point is that, it’s much easier to predict macro economic direction than the direction of the market. I would also say it’s much easier to predict direction of the market than predicting the direction of a single stock. It’s much more likely to have a wrench toss into your prediction wrt a single stock than the whole stock market. Which is why I no longer go short on any one stock. The closest I get now to shorting is shorting the entire index if I think the whole market is bubbly.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy.[/quote]Nope. I’m pretty sure I know a lot more young people and those who even know what prop 13 is doesn’t hate it. As for hire taxes, they just attribute it to being in CA and they deal w/ it.[/quote]

By 2012, however, public attitudes appeared to be changing. Opinion polls conducted last year and again this spring by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed that although residents feel Prop. 13 as a whole has been good for the state, a majority now favors modifying some of its parts – in particular, to tax commercial properties at their market value. This is a marked change from 20 years ago, when Prop. 167 – a proposal to permit reappraisal of most business-owned real property after a specified change in ownership – went down by a 3-2 margin.

Even among Republican voters, support for some sort of Prop. 13 reform now hovers around 50 percent. The latest PPIC survey shows a majority of voters also supports allowing localities to raise specific-use taxes with a 55 percent vote. That shift comes in the wake of failed local measures in Los Angeles County and elsewhere last November; designed to fund basic infrastructure, they fell just shy of the two-thirds requirement.

http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=929566&wteid=929566_Tinkering_with_a_Tax_Revolt

——-

But a growing number of critics, Bestor among them, are part of a movement to change Proposition 13 in its application to commercial property by “splitting the rolls” and assessing commercial property at its market value on a periodic basis rather than only upon change of ownership.

http://california-in-crisis.news21.com/node/52

——

Split roll assessments will probably be here within the next 10-15 years, IMO. Not sure about investor-owned residential properties, but I’ve yet to hear a good argument for tax subsidies for landlords, especially if they don’t pass along at least part of the savings to the renters. If anyone has a good reason for why these provisions of Prop 13 should stay, I’d love to hear more about it.

The reason Prop 13 passed is because people overwhelmingly felt that people should not be taxed out of their own homes, and I would agree with this. Most voters in California don’t support giving wealthy corporate entities and landowners extra subsidies at the expense of other taxpayers and California residents.[/quote]
How is this in response to my objection to your statement of:
[quote=CA renter]Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy.[/quote]It didn’t say young people really hate Prop 13. When you hate something, you want to abolish it, not modify it. Kind of like the Republican vs the ACA. It’s the Democrats who love the ACA and want to modify it because they know the public sentiment is against the ACA as it stands today.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy.[/quote]Nope. I’m pretty sure I know a lot more young people and those who even know what prop 13 is doesn’t hate it. As for hire taxes, they just attribute it to being in CA and they deal w/ it.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN] This is not about opaqueness. It’s about overt and transparent discrimination. I’m pretty sure if a private company say, we take race into consideration when we’re hiring, they will be sued until they will no longer do that.[/quote]

You have a lot of faith in the private sector,

In the private sector, nobody would say that anything is based on race.. but they would said things like “team player”, “deals better with customers”, “better communications skills”, etc…

In the public sector, the rules and procedures are more likely to be written down and documented. That’s why the UC admits more on pure academic merit then the Ivy league.

Notice that I never defended race based admissions. All I’m saying is that merit can be more than academic record.[/quote]You have it all wrong. I’m not talking about faith. I’m talking about overt discrimination. Last I check, I don’t see any company that came out and state they take race into consideration when hiring.

I’m not against have other criterias for admission. What I’m against is the overt discrimination that deadzone seems to be OK with, which lead me to ask “Can we use the same logic in the private sector?”. I wasn’t responding to you, I was responding to deadzone.

[an]

I’m totally with joec on this one. I’m in the camp of manage debt. Everyone have different tolerance for debt, so there’s no right or wrong answer. However, for me, I would know what my income would be every year, that number would be more firm in retire. As long as that deb is well below the income and manageable, then that’s perfectly fine with me. I value having capital more than worrying about manageable debt. I would be more worried when I’m debt free but cash strap. Having capital allow me a lot of flexibility and help me handle various different scenario.

[an]

[quote=flu]I’ve changed my mind. Sorry folks. I’m out today @$.73…

I found a spare engine for my miata I think I want to get…. And I think this will about cover it…(No really, the miata engine is cheap :))

The rest of you folks can now enjoy a over $1 gain now that I’m out )

You are welcome.[/quote]
Hopefully you’re right and we’ll see another 30% pop again tomorrow :-).

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN] Can we use the same logic in the private sector?[/quote]

Actually, hiring and admission in the private sector is a lot more opaque.

For instance, the UC has to account for its admission standards. Compare that to the ivy league where they don’t feel as much pressure to admit students with the highest scores. If I recall Asians are only about 13% at the Ivy league.

As society becomes more complex, more standards, rules and procedures are introduced. Academic standards or exam results become objective measures of merit. That’s worrying parents whose kids don’t do well academically.[/quote]This is not about opaqueness. It’s about overt and transparent discrimination. I’m pretty sure if a private company say, we take race into consideration when we’re hiring, they will be sued until they will no longer do that.

[an]

[quote=deadzone]I think you guys are making way too big a deal out of this. Although in general I am against affirmative action if it means putting less qualified people in positions in place of more qualified, I don’t necessarily feel that way when it comes to our public universities.

Fact is, these are tax payer subsidized institutions funded by all Cal tax payers. If, for example, only 10% of the population is Asian but 50% of the student body is Asian, THAT IS A PROBLEM. So what if an Asian student gets beat out by a black student with a slightly lower SAT score. As long as there are minimal standards maintained I don’t have a problem with that.

It is common sense that a state university should strive to have a demographic at least partially in line with the state demographic. The entire purpose of a public school is to provide a service by educating state residents. Ther eis no law that says they have to admit only kids with the highest SAT scores.

College educationis highly overrated in the first place but that is a completely different debate.[/quote]Why did you say slight? What make you think it’s slight? What if it’s drastic? Would you still stand by your argument? Last I check, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how slight it is. Why should race even be considered? I’m a tax payer, why should my tax dollar go subsidize a less qualified candidate? Can we use the same logic in the private sector?

[an]

That’s good to hear.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN] Last year, I did that and my combined state + federal was ~9%. This year, I didn’t do any 1099 stuff and I’m paying ~17% combined all the while, getting paid less.[/quote]

You really know how to pour salt down that wound of mine…. Why not skip salt water, and just get out the rubbing alcohol and dump that in while you’re at it, and then get out a lighter while you’re at it :)[/quote]Well, at least you’re getting paid more than I. This is another reason why I decide not to move to the bay. I would probably be in your situation if I’m in the bay.

[an]

.

[an]

[quote=patb]saves a ton to make solar part of new construction[/quote]
Uh, maybe you mean builders makes a ton of profit, not home owner saving a ton. My system was installed August 2012. My 3.6kWh system cost me $16k, which is slightly cheaper than creechrr’s system he got upgraded from the builder.

[an]

[quote=flu]52 week high… Anyone getting out?

I think I’ll hold until it either goes to $0, or goes to whatever…[/quote]I’m going for broke on this one too. I can afford to lose everything on this one, since I didn’t put much in. That’s typically what you do w/ penny stocks, right? Bet small but hope it’ll go to a few dollars.

[an]

flu, just be glad you’re not in the bay. You’d really be consider wealthy and be paying a lot more. On the flip side, you have small biz owner who can deduct their 911 Turbo S as business expense. For awhile, I was trying really hard to move up the corp ladder, but now, I’ve seen the light. I want a safe W2 place with great benefits and low(er) wage that have flexible schedule, which allow me to do stuff on the side and get 1099. Last year, I did that and my combined state + federal was ~9%. This year, I didn’t do any 1099 stuff and I’m paying ~17% combined all the while, getting paid less.

[an]

Congrats flu. You’re much more courageous than I. I can’t seem to find places that make good return anymore.

[Author]

Posts