[EconProf]

You have a crappy landlord who will always be a crappy landlord. He is the type that gives all of us landlords a bad reputation.
I’d suggest you go one of two routes:
1. Since he will always be a pain in the ass to you, or any future tenant, fully enforce your legal rights and become a pain in HIS ass. It sounds like you have so many rights being violated already, you can start giving him written demands immediately to provide you with a safe, habitable place to live for your rent checks. First, read thoroughly your rental agreement.
Or,
2. Move out. You took over a place with certain advantages, which you mention. You perhaps got an extra good rent in that voluntary transaction. Many crappy landlords offer lower rent and hope minor faults are thereby accepted by the tenant. Many tenants actually prefer the lower rent along with the faults. So its your choice. BTW, didn’t you see a lot of these problems and red flags before you moved in?

[EconProf]

You have a crappy landlord who will always be a crappy landlord. He is the type that gives all of us landlords a bad reputation.
I’d suggest you go one of two routes:
1. Since he will always be a pain in the ass to you, or any future tenant, fully enforce your legal rights and become a pain in HIS ass. It sounds like you have so many rights being violated already, you can start giving him written demands immediately to provide you with a safe, habitable place to live for your rent checks. First, read thoroughly your rental agreement.
Or,
2. Move out. You took over a place with certain advantages, which you mention. You perhaps got an extra good rent in that voluntary transaction. Many crappy landlords offer lower rent and hope minor faults are thereby accepted by the tenant. Many tenants actually prefer the lower rent along with the faults. So its your choice. BTW, didn’t you see a lot of these problems and red flags before you moved in?

[EconProf]

You have a crappy landlord who will always be a crappy landlord. He is the type that gives all of us landlords a bad reputation.
I’d suggest you go one of two routes:
1. Since he will always be a pain in the ass to you, or any future tenant, fully enforce your legal rights and become a pain in HIS ass. It sounds like you have so many rights being violated already, you can start giving him written demands immediately to provide you with a safe, habitable place to live for your rent checks. First, read thoroughly your rental agreement.
Or,
2. Move out. You took over a place with certain advantages, which you mention. You perhaps got an extra good rent in that voluntary transaction. Many crappy landlords offer lower rent and hope minor faults are thereby accepted by the tenant. Many tenants actually prefer the lower rent along with the faults. So its your choice. BTW, didn’t you see a lot of these problems and red flags before you moved in?

[EconProf]

You have a crappy landlord who will always be a crappy landlord. He is the type that gives all of us landlords a bad reputation.
I’d suggest you go one of two routes:
1. Since he will always be a pain in the ass to you, or any future tenant, fully enforce your legal rights and become a pain in HIS ass. It sounds like you have so many rights being violated already, you can start giving him written demands immediately to provide you with a safe, habitable place to live for your rent checks. First, read thoroughly your rental agreement.
Or,
2. Move out. You took over a place with certain advantages, which you mention. You perhaps got an extra good rent in that voluntary transaction. Many crappy landlords offer lower rent and hope minor faults are thereby accepted by the tenant. Many tenants actually prefer the lower rent along with the faults. So its your choice. BTW, didn’t you see a lot of these problems and red flags before you moved in?

[EconProf]

Seldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.

[EconProf]

Seldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.

[EconProf]

Seldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.

[EconProf]

Seldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.

[EconProf]

Seldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.

[EconProf]

Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.

EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.

[EconProf]

Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.

EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.

[EconProf]

Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.

EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.

[EconProf]

Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.

EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.

[EconProf]

Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.

EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.

[EconProf]

The difficulty with barter is you have to have the exact good or service someone else wants, and they have to have the particular good or service you want.
That’s why they invented money.

[Author]

Posts