Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=AN]Is it just me that keep referring to a notion of “fairness” or is this who protest about it not being fair? Why don’t you show your work? Mine is simple, we all pay a fixed % of what we make (no deduction, no nothing). You make more, you pay more, you make less you pay less. You might not agree with my definition of fairness but it is what it is.[/quote]
I don’t recall making any reference to a standard of fairness in my posts.
So you are in favor of a flat tax. You are willing to pay more taxes in the interest of fairness?[/quote]
I don’t recall responding to you or saying you made references to fairness. I was responding to davelj and Brian. Then you responded to me, saying I keep referring to the notion of “fairness”.Yes, I’m in favor of a flat tax.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]You keep referring to a notion of “fairness” as if it were some threshold: some pay more than what is fair, some pay less.
How do we determine what is a fair share? Many seem to be pretty sure exactly what the value is, but can’t even begin to provide a justification.
The answer requires more than just a number. You have to show your work.[/quote]
Is it just me that keep referring to a notion of “fairness” or is this who protest about it not being fair? Why don’t you show your work? Mine is simple, we all pay a fixed % of what we make (no deduction, no nothing). You make more, you pay more, you make less you pay less. You might not agree with my definition of fairness but it is what it is.Participant[quote=davelj][quote=AN]
Nicely put. I totally agree. I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. Of course, if they got their money through illegal means, then yes, they should be punished. But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.[/quote]Yes, but without the government structure (and enforcement) of laws, property rights, etc. – not to mention an educated workforce and population – how would these folks have been able to start a business in the first place to get into the top 1%? Without the government allowing a corporate entity to exist – with its limited liability for owners/shareholders – these folks would all have bupkus… because no one would take the large-scale risks necessary to do the things they’ve done if they faced personal liability for failure. The “corporate veil” is one of the single most valuable tools of the rich. Which I don’t have a problem with, by the way. But… those that benefit from it should pay DEARLY for its use… because without it most of them would not be in the position they’re in. They would never PERSONALLY undertake the risks that the corporate veil allows them to undertake. And without being able to take those risks… again… bupkus.[/quote]
I never said there should be no government structure/enforcement of laws, etc. We need all of that and we ALL need to pay. I personally think they pay more than their fair share. If those who are up there don’t think so, they can send the IRS more. I think there are MANY who are NOT paying their fair share and they’re not in the 1%.Participant[quote=briansd1]It’s interesting that those who want be rich don’t support the Buffett Rule. But Warren Buffett himself supports the Buffett Rule. Who’s the better judge of fairness and equity here?[/quote]
No one is stopping them from giving their money to the government. Why does Buffet give his money to charity instead to the IRS? Why are they not leading my example to send checks to the IRS? They are also welcome to pay for all of their employee’s income tax too if they want. Everyone is equal judge of fairness and equity. Just because you make more money doesn’t mean your definition of fairness and equity is more valid.Participant[quote=jstoesz]“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.
Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?
Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification.
If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government). Just because inequality exists does not logically lead to class warfare by the rich on the poor.[/quote]
Nicely put. I totally agree. I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. Of course, if they got their money through illegal means, then yes, they should be punished. But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]pfflyer, you have to ask yourself (on a case-by-case basis), “What was done to the property since 2003?”
You can’t expect to get $100K ++ in “improvements” for “free” if the property was purchased “original” or “near original” in 2003 (or thereabouts) unless the sellers are about to lose the property to foreclosure and their lender(s) are willing to “play ball.” It’s not purely a “numbers game” in the areas you are looking in. Many of those ‘hoods may have been tracts at one time but since the vast majority are now remodeled to varying shapes and sizes, they could now be considered “custom areas.” Therefore, the money spent on them by former owners varies WILDLY from property to property.
Your “numbers game” only works on tracts in which there are few models (under 6), the houses are fairly new (under 20 years old) and the type of buyers who purchased them in the past didn’t have the wherewithal to drastically improve them (and/or the area wasn’t worth spending a lot of “home improvement” money in).
pfflyer, if you want an “under-market deal” in one of your target areas, I recommend looking for a very dated fixer and offering to pay in escrow for any termite work needed.[/quote]
I can’t speak for pfflyer, but when I refer to something like 2003 price, I would be referring to the price the house would sold for in 2003 at its current condition, not its pre-remodeled condition.The “numbers game” has nothing to do with tract vs custom. I’ve shown a couple custom homes in RSF at 1998-2000 price and plain jain tract homes in 4S Ranch and MM at 2003 price.
Participant[quote=UCGal]It wouldn’t be a stretch to put another residential high rise in that area – Costa Verde is already there, right across the street.
It makes sense in many ways – it’s a transportation hub, there’s shopping and restaurants.
My husband and I talked about, before we built the companion unit, downsizing to a condo in one of the high rises at UTC once the kids are grown… have a walkable lifestyle, only need one car (for vacations and further out errands), etc.[/quote]
Once the trolly goes from UTC through MM (which they already have plans for), you will be able to get to most stuff you need without the need of a car.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You dont get to choose.[/quote]
Yep, you also don’t get to choose how smart you are. However, you get to choose how much of an a-hole you want to be to other people.Participant[quote=temeculaguy]And as I just mentioned on the nationwide protest thread, the true catalyst of the end of recession, the Detroit Lions, they set an attendance record tonight.
Somebody explain that? If you believe the papers they are eating rocks by now in Detroit, Attendance record in Detroit for a football game!!!, Yeah,,,,it’s over.
When you can’t get a seat to a Lions game, it’s time to stop buying spam and ammo.[/quote]
But I like spam 😀ParticipantNicely put TG. To add my own anecdotal experience, I went to Donovan’s this past weekend and the place was practically full by 6PM. Went to Extraordinary Dessert on Union at around 7PM and it was full as well.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]If you’re going to install an appliance like that and use it yourself for 10-20 years, it might be worth it to YOU but don’t count on recovering any portion of its purchase price in a $350K (avg) neighborhood. You don’t need an ultra-expensive range to prepare your lunch to take to work. You simply microwave the lunch at work, if needed, as I did every day for 25+ years.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with the kind of neighborhood. You shouldn’t expect to recover much of the purchase price of the $3k range (if it’s a few years old), even if you have a $1M house. Used appliances aren’t worth very much, you can take a look at craigslist to see what their market value really are. How much an item is worth is different to everyone. Most if not all 10-20 years old appliances are worthless.
[quote=bearishgurl]You don’t need an ultra-expensive range to prepare your lunch to take to work. You simply microwave the lunch at work, if needed, as I did every day for 25+ years.[/quote]
Yes, and you don’t need a luxury car, a $700k house, a vacation, etc. There are many things in life that you don’t NEED, yet you spend money on them. Why do you spend money on those things when you don’t need it? All of us have a finite amount of money to spend. We all spend it differently. There is no right or wrong, as long as the result is it makes us happier. Appliances are like cars (except they’re much cheaper), they depreciate. So, to expect a return on investment of high end appliance in the future is pretty foolish to me, regardless of how expensive the house is.ParticipantHere’s one in Rancho Santa Fe: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Del-Mar/15511-Churchill-Downs-92014/home/4451394
Currently listed at $1.05M. Sold for $800k in 1989. I would think RSF is a pretty desirable area/zip code. 10k+ lot is pretty decent for 3400 sq-ft house. I would guess this would would sold for around $1M in 2000-2001. This is what I would call a darn good deal.
Or how about this one: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Rancho-Santa-Fe/Avenida-Arroyo-Pasajero-92091/home/4191037, sold for $50k less than its 1998 price. That’s what I would call a darn good deal too.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Of course you want to make your recently-purchased property exactly as you want it for your daily needs, CAR. Especially if you bought it a bit under market. HOWEVER, I DO think it is financially foolish to install a +/- $3K “gourmet range” into an (avg) $350K property in a working-class neighborhood, under ANY circumstances, for example. Perhaps in an (avg) $550K neighborhood, it might be “worth it” to do so, if the homeowner stays long enough to enjoy it themselves.
But if you were planning to sell (or rent your property out) in less than 3 years from now (as I am), would you STILL invest the kind of $$ in it that you are currently spending??[/quote]
With that logic, those who live in a working-class neighborhood shouldn’t be driving luxury cars either. A $3k range is nothing when a luxury car can be easily over $40k. I guess they all should be driving old beat up cars or some nondescript econobox by your logic. $3k is less than 1% of the house. If you truly love to cook (which would be one reason why you would want an expensive kitchen appliance), you can cook everyday and brown bag. That’s $5-10 saved per person. A couple, that’s $10-20 saved a day. It adds up to $1300-5200/year. That would be more than enough to cover the cost of the range.You make it seems like $3k is a lot of money. It truly is not.
ParticipantI’m sure things have changed a lot. But in my eyes, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a good deal. How much does a lot that size with that view cost? Add in the cost of building a 4k sq-ft house. I personally think this might be a unique opportunity to buy these kind of deals. They over built 4000 sq-ft house in the area, which drive down the cost, but I think that’s temporary. In the long run, the land and view will dictate the trend line. You can upgrade the house to modern standard, but you can’t add a view.
-
AuthorPosts
