[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The flippers like Bruce Norris claim they’re getting the lender to sell them at 40% of the loan or less at a no-reserve auction. But remember, these guys are total pro’s. Notice that they dont want to keep the properties either. Even at positive cash flow as a rental. What does that tell you?

Simple.
It tells me that Bruce Norris has the ability to generate 20-40% profits on flips in a three-month holding period, and prefers that to long-term cash flow at effectively 10% annually.
Which would you choose for your business: 20% in three months or 10% annually ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The flippers like Bruce Norris claim they’re getting the lender to sell them at 40% of the loan or less at a no-reserve auction. But remember, these guys are total pro’s. Notice that they dont want to keep the properties either. Even at positive cash flow as a rental. What does that tell you?

Simple.
It tells me that Bruce Norris has the ability to generate 20-40% profits on flips in a three-month holding period, and prefers that to long-term cash flow at effectively 10% annually.
Which would you choose for your business: 20% in three months or 10% annually ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

$500 per month is 4.3% of your income.
That’s what your talking about saving by walking away. And you’ve been in the house less than a year.

I know it is psychologically troubling that your house is $100K underwater. It might ultimately behoove you to walk away. But you have the option of staying there as long as you want before you walk for a relatively small fraction of your salary. Maybe your next raise or two will cover the loss. Small potatoes.
I’d at least hang around for another couple years to see how far it goes and what remedies might be offered before starting to walk.

It is likely that within a few years (maybe 5 or so) that rents will be equal to your payment or higher.

But, why even worry about what your house is worth in order to save a measly 4.3% of your salary ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

$500 per month is 4.3% of your income.
That’s what your talking about saving by walking away. And you’ve been in the house less than a year.

I know it is psychologically troubling that your house is $100K underwater. It might ultimately behoove you to walk away. But you have the option of staying there as long as you want before you walk for a relatively small fraction of your salary. Maybe your next raise or two will cover the loss. Small potatoes.
I’d at least hang around for another couple years to see how far it goes and what remedies might be offered before starting to walk.

It is likely that within a few years (maybe 5 or so) that rents will be equal to your payment or higher.

But, why even worry about what your house is worth in order to save a measly 4.3% of your salary ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

$500 per month is 4.3% of your income.
That’s what your talking about saving by walking away. And you’ve been in the house less than a year.

I know it is psychologically troubling that your house is $100K underwater. It might ultimately behoove you to walk away. But you have the option of staying there as long as you want before you walk for a relatively small fraction of your salary. Maybe your next raise or two will cover the loss. Small potatoes.
I’d at least hang around for another couple years to see how far it goes and what remedies might be offered before starting to walk.

It is likely that within a few years (maybe 5 or so) that rents will be equal to your payment or higher.

But, why even worry about what your house is worth in order to save a measly 4.3% of your salary ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

$500 per month is 4.3% of your income.
That’s what your talking about saving by walking away. And you’ve been in the house less than a year.

I know it is psychologically troubling that your house is $100K underwater. It might ultimately behoove you to walk away. But you have the option of staying there as long as you want before you walk for a relatively small fraction of your salary. Maybe your next raise or two will cover the loss. Small potatoes.
I’d at least hang around for another couple years to see how far it goes and what remedies might be offered before starting to walk.

It is likely that within a few years (maybe 5 or so) that rents will be equal to your payment or higher.

But, why even worry about what your house is worth in order to save a measly 4.3% of your salary ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

$500 per month is 4.3% of your income.
That’s what your talking about saving by walking away. And you’ve been in the house less than a year.

I know it is psychologically troubling that your house is $100K underwater. It might ultimately behoove you to walk away. But you have the option of staying there as long as you want before you walk for a relatively small fraction of your salary. Maybe your next raise or two will cover the loss. Small potatoes.
I’d at least hang around for another couple years to see how far it goes and what remedies might be offered before starting to walk.

It is likely that within a few years (maybe 5 or so) that rents will be equal to your payment or higher.

But, why even worry about what your house is worth in order to save a measly 4.3% of your salary ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

Except the bulk of the taxes come from W-2 earnings. How many CEO’s have $0 salaries but are compensated with equities and deferred compensation?[/quote]

If a CEO is paid in stock, he still has to pay tax on that stock. That is, a CEO can’t get out of paying tax just because he is paid in something that is not “cash”. For example, if a CEO is paid in cows, he still has to pay taxes on the fair value of those cows. So this is a straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also, if we were to remove the cap on social security taxes on income, who is this really hurting?
[/quote]

Under Obama’s plan, the social security tax will apply to income up to something like $95K, then there would be no social security tax on income between $95K and $250K, and then the social security tax would apply to income over $250K. Another straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
I can see this already. Across the nation, CEO’s are going to (for the interest of the company) starting taking a $0 salary…(Of course the equity will be doubled, and especially at these market prices, that’s even more reward for the future).

Think about it.
[/quote]

As I stated above, the CEOs will be taxed on that equity when they receive it. Then, they will be taxed at a higher capital gains rate when they sell that equity. Another straw man.
[/quote]

So, stock gains are not taxed at income tax rates. Capital gains rates are lower. No Social security tax is taken from these gains.

So, if you consider these three items labelled as “straw man” arguments it becomes obvious that taking stock options rather than salary above 250K, becomes a way to avoid BOTH the increase in social security taxes on payroll aver 250K and any other federal income tax rate increases in this category.

Calling each of these things individually straw men, without considering their combined effect is itself a straw man.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

Except the bulk of the taxes come from W-2 earnings. How many CEO’s have $0 salaries but are compensated with equities and deferred compensation?[/quote]

If a CEO is paid in stock, he still has to pay tax on that stock. That is, a CEO can’t get out of paying tax just because he is paid in something that is not “cash”. For example, if a CEO is paid in cows, he still has to pay taxes on the fair value of those cows. So this is a straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also, if we were to remove the cap on social security taxes on income, who is this really hurting?
[/quote]

Under Obama’s plan, the social security tax will apply to income up to something like $95K, then there would be no social security tax on income between $95K and $250K, and then the social security tax would apply to income over $250K. Another straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
I can see this already. Across the nation, CEO’s are going to (for the interest of the company) starting taking a $0 salary…(Of course the equity will be doubled, and especially at these market prices, that’s even more reward for the future).

Think about it.
[/quote]

As I stated above, the CEOs will be taxed on that equity when they receive it. Then, they will be taxed at a higher capital gains rate when they sell that equity. Another straw man.
[/quote]

So, stock gains are not taxed at income tax rates. Capital gains rates are lower. No Social security tax is taken from these gains.

So, if you consider these three items labelled as “straw man” arguments it becomes obvious that taking stock options rather than salary above 250K, becomes a way to avoid BOTH the increase in social security taxes on payroll aver 250K and any other federal income tax rate increases in this category.

Calling each of these things individually straw men, without considering their combined effect is itself a straw man.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

Except the bulk of the taxes come from W-2 earnings. How many CEO’s have $0 salaries but are compensated with equities and deferred compensation?[/quote]

If a CEO is paid in stock, he still has to pay tax on that stock. That is, a CEO can’t get out of paying tax just because he is paid in something that is not “cash”. For example, if a CEO is paid in cows, he still has to pay taxes on the fair value of those cows. So this is a straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also, if we were to remove the cap on social security taxes on income, who is this really hurting?
[/quote]

Under Obama’s plan, the social security tax will apply to income up to something like $95K, then there would be no social security tax on income between $95K and $250K, and then the social security tax would apply to income over $250K. Another straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
I can see this already. Across the nation, CEO’s are going to (for the interest of the company) starting taking a $0 salary…(Of course the equity will be doubled, and especially at these market prices, that’s even more reward for the future).

Think about it.
[/quote]

As I stated above, the CEOs will be taxed on that equity when they receive it. Then, they will be taxed at a higher capital gains rate when they sell that equity. Another straw man.
[/quote]

So, stock gains are not taxed at income tax rates. Capital gains rates are lower. No Social security tax is taken from these gains.

So, if you consider these three items labelled as “straw man” arguments it becomes obvious that taking stock options rather than salary above 250K, becomes a way to avoid BOTH the increase in social security taxes on payroll aver 250K and any other federal income tax rate increases in this category.

Calling each of these things individually straw men, without considering their combined effect is itself a straw man.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

Except the bulk of the taxes come from W-2 earnings. How many CEO’s have $0 salaries but are compensated with equities and deferred compensation?[/quote]

If a CEO is paid in stock, he still has to pay tax on that stock. That is, a CEO can’t get out of paying tax just because he is paid in something that is not “cash”. For example, if a CEO is paid in cows, he still has to pay taxes on the fair value of those cows. So this is a straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also, if we were to remove the cap on social security taxes on income, who is this really hurting?
[/quote]

Under Obama’s plan, the social security tax will apply to income up to something like $95K, then there would be no social security tax on income between $95K and $250K, and then the social security tax would apply to income over $250K. Another straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
I can see this already. Across the nation, CEO’s are going to (for the interest of the company) starting taking a $0 salary…(Of course the equity will be doubled, and especially at these market prices, that’s even more reward for the future).

Think about it.
[/quote]

As I stated above, the CEOs will be taxed on that equity when they receive it. Then, they will be taxed at a higher capital gains rate when they sell that equity. Another straw man.
[/quote]

So, stock gains are not taxed at income tax rates. Capital gains rates are lower. No Social security tax is taken from these gains.

So, if you consider these three items labelled as “straw man” arguments it becomes obvious that taking stock options rather than salary above 250K, becomes a way to avoid BOTH the increase in social security taxes on payroll aver 250K and any other federal income tax rate increases in this category.

Calling each of these things individually straw men, without considering their combined effect is itself a straw man.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]

Except the bulk of the taxes come from W-2 earnings. How many CEO’s have $0 salaries but are compensated with equities and deferred compensation?[/quote]

If a CEO is paid in stock, he still has to pay tax on that stock. That is, a CEO can’t get out of paying tax just because he is paid in something that is not “cash”. For example, if a CEO is paid in cows, he still has to pay taxes on the fair value of those cows. So this is a straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Also, if we were to remove the cap on social security taxes on income, who is this really hurting?
[/quote]

Under Obama’s plan, the social security tax will apply to income up to something like $95K, then there would be no social security tax on income between $95K and $250K, and then the social security tax would apply to income over $250K. Another straw man.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
I can see this already. Across the nation, CEO’s are going to (for the interest of the company) starting taking a $0 salary…(Of course the equity will be doubled, and especially at these market prices, that’s even more reward for the future).

Think about it.
[/quote]

As I stated above, the CEOs will be taxed on that equity when they receive it. Then, they will be taxed at a higher capital gains rate when they sell that equity. Another straw man.
[/quote]

So, stock gains are not taxed at income tax rates. Capital gains rates are lower. No Social security tax is taken from these gains.

So, if you consider these three items labelled as “straw man” arguments it becomes obvious that taking stock options rather than salary above 250K, becomes a way to avoid BOTH the increase in social security taxes on payroll aver 250K and any other federal income tax rate increases in this category.

Calling each of these things individually straw men, without considering their combined effect is itself a straw man.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=az4ronpaul]Based on historical financial crisis this bailout will eventuall cost the taxpapyers of the US about 21% of GDP or about $3 trillion. I’d estimate the next package is going to be a monster. Over $1 trillion. It will happen before inauguration of President McCain.[/quote]

Does that mean it will never happen ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=az4ronpaul]Based on historical financial crisis this bailout will eventuall cost the taxpapyers of the US about 21% of GDP or about $3 trillion. I’d estimate the next package is going to be a monster. Over $1 trillion. It will happen before inauguration of President McCain.[/quote]

Does that mean it will never happen ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=az4ronpaul]Based on historical financial crisis this bailout will eventuall cost the taxpapyers of the US about 21% of GDP or about $3 trillion. I’d estimate the next package is going to be a monster. Over $1 trillion. It will happen before inauguration of President McCain.[/quote]

Does that mean it will never happen ?

[Author]

Posts