[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Ever wonder when politicians go after “rich” and attempt to tax “rich more”….somehow, they always leave out all the corporate tax loopholes…but instead go after the much lower hanging fruit, typical higher W2 wage earners (double income earners) with supplemental dividends/investment income that is slightly 1 step above middle class but certainly not “rich”, the ones that typically can’t dodge the tax bill through some sketchy slight of hand… Funny how that always seems to work…..[/quote]

This doesn’t do anything like that. Taxes on wages would be unaffected. Some of the supplemental income would be affected if it was capital gains. No change to taxes on dividends or interest for high wage earners. The biggest effect will be those that have big cap gains. The cap gain tax rate will still be more than 25% lower than on marginal earned income for those affected. There’s no good reason it should be any lower.

[SK in CV]

Long past due. There may have been a time when preferential tax treatment for capital over labor was warranted. Those days are long past. Even if this passes, there will still be preference for capital, but at least it will be shrinking.

[SK in CV]

[quote=utcsox]The supply curve and demand curves for crude oil in short term is very steep. With oil price above $100 per barrel , fracking and oil sand is economically viable to produce crude oil. The softening global economics (China and Europe) has reduced the demand for crude oil globally. Both of these factors have contributed in a sudden sharp fall in crude oil prices in short term. Now, we will see how demand and supply adjust to price changes in long term.[/quote]

I don’t think there’s actually been any significant decline in oil consumption or demand. This drop in price has been almost entirely supply driven. The US, along with a few other countries, have upped production. Nobody has cut production, hence too much oil and no place to put it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]A slowdown abroad came.

The Saudis are dumping oil in the market (possibly at our behest to hurt the Russians, Persians, and IS??, possibly for economic reasons of their own).

[/quote]

Kinda depends on what you mean by “dumping oil in the market”. Saudi production, as a practical matter, is unchanged for the last 42 months. The Saudis haven’t flooded the market. Other producers, including the US, have increased, in some cases, dramatically, their production. And the demand/supply balance is extraordinarily inelastic. There is no place to put extra oil. When there is extra (even a little extra) produced, prices drop. When there is a shortage (even a small shortage), prices rise.

I’m not saying the Saudis haven’t made some calculated decisions over the last 90 days. They have. But they didn’t cause the glut. And they’re not the only ones that can fix it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Speculators don’t provide any similar benefits.[/quote]

Then why does anybody transact with them?[/quote]

Taken together, these two comments are a perfect example of begging the question. The claim that speculators don’t provide any benefits in the real estate market is presumptive. They do provide a service. Real estate speculators both buy from a willing seller, and sell to a willing buyer. With very minor exceptions, real estate speculators have never controlled markets as, for instance, the Hunt brothers controlled the silver market 35 years ago. That doesn’t mean that they (speculators) have no effect on market prices. They do. Just as grocery stores and Costco have en effect on prices.[/quote]

The problem is that speculators often have an advantage over organic buyers and sellers. Take, for instance, the housing market when the bubble burst. Who had the best access to massive amounts of foreclosures? The speculators did. They even managed to limit the access to this inventory by requiring very high qualifications that very few individuals could meet in order to purchase REO inventory. There were many buyers (also speculators, to a large extent) who were fully qualified to purchase REOs from different sources, but were excluded because they didn’t have the right connections. At the tail end was Jane and Joe Sixpack’s access to affordable housing, always getting in and out AFTER the well-connected few have made their purchases and sales.

http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Policy/Pages/Real-Estate-Owned-%28REO%29.aspx

http://fhfaoig.gov/Content/Files/AUD-2013-012.pdf

Speculators have advantages that regular buyers and sellers don’t — business networks (cronyism), access to capital (also largely because of their connections), access to privileged information, etc. If they didn’t have these advantages they wouldn’t make up such a huge part of the market, and the FIRE sector wouldn’t be such a dominant player our economy.

Cash buyers in RE (not all, but most of them are speculators) — over half of the market:

The majority of home purchases are now being done by cash buyers: Destroying the myth that cash buyers are a small portion of the market. 60 percent of homes sold in 2013 came from the all cash crowd.

————-

Speculators make up the majority of traders in the stock markets as well as the commodities and forex markets (~80% speculation in FOREX, IIRC), to name a few.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/big-banks-busted-manipulating-aluminum-and-copper-prices.html

HFT is supposedly retreating, but they were trading between 60-70% of the stock market volume in recent years; and that’s just HFT.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/how-the-robots-lost-high-frequency-tradings-rise-and-fall

———————–

To suggest that speculation doesn’t cause problems is like saying that concert ticket scalpers aren’t a problem. Nobody in their right mind would claim that. Both the sellers and the buyers are losing on almost every transaction in which a scalper is involved. Additionally, as with any market, the scalper/speculator is going to be most active on the buy side when they anticipate unusually high demand/restricted supply, which exacerbates pricing volatility. In markets where they can short, they move markets down when prices are already expected to go down, making the drops larger (and the rebound sharper/faster when they have to buy to close positions).

IMO, speculators might be buyers and sellers, but they do not provide any real benefits to society at large. Ever penny made by a speculator is lost to a buyer and/or a seller. That’s why I say speculation is zero-sum.[/quote]

I guess, if you define speculator as anyone who buys property with the expectation that the value will go up, then you’re right. Speculators cornered the market. That would include those with intention of flipping, intermediate and long-term landlords and those acquiring property to occupy. So everyone who buys property is a speculator. Yep, they cornered the market.

As an aside, debt holders, including agency debt-holders and guarantors, didn’t bundle distressed assets to do a favor for investors. It wasn’t an inside deal to funnel profits to special friends. It was the only efficient way for them to liquidate distressed inventory. Those buyers are the Marshalls, Home Goods and Big Lots of the real estate business. Is Big Lots an evil blight on the retail market?

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Speculators don’t provide any similar benefits.[/quote]

Then why does anybody transact with them?[/quote]

Taken together, these two comments are a perfect example of begging the question. The claim that speculators don’t provide any benefits in the real estate market is presumptive. They do provide a service. Real estate speculators both buy from a willing seller, and sell to a willing buyer. With very minor exceptions, real estate speculators have never controlled markets as, for instance, the Hunt brothers controlled the silver market 35 years ago. That doesn’t mean that they (speculators) have no effect on market prices. They do. Just as grocery stores and Costco have en effect on prices.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte][quote=SK in CV][quote=svelte]It is terrible that he died yes, but he was certainly not cooperating.

I don’t care if you’re white, black, yellow or orange if you don’t cooperate with police then they should be able to use force to make you cooperate.

[/quote]

Cooperate or die? Really?[/quote]

Twisting my words? Really?[/quote]

Nope. You’re the one that made the argument that it’s Garner’s fault that he’s dead because he didn’t cooperate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Seems pretty clear cut to me. The cop used an illegal chokehold.[/quote]

It is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy. Intentionally choking someone to death is illegal. The chokehold itself is not.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]It is terrible that he died yes, but he was certainly not cooperating.

I don’t care if you’re white, black, yellow or orange if you don’t cooperate with police then they should be able to use force to make you cooperate.

[/quote]

Cooperate or die? Really?

[SK in CV]

Maybe because some of us are smart enough to know that because some morons have claimed that he used the IRS as a weapon against conservatives, doesn’t mean the evidence actually supports the claim. (It doesn’t. The actual evidence shows that the IRS correctly targeted both liberal and conservative groups equally for higher scrutiny, and neither were abused. And that there was no administration involvement.) Only morons and ideologues continue to believe garbage like this, and the whole Benghazi “scandal”, despite republican lead committee reports which debunk both.

Israel still exists. It hasn’t been trashed. And there is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapon capabilities.

Next question?

[SK in CV]

[quote=terracap]The key is how the Husband and wife chose vesting in escrow when they bought the house. Since the husband brought 100k as his sole and seperate money how did he vest the property? Was the house Joe doe married man as his sole and seperate property or Joe doe and Jane doe as joint tenants ? Also was both of their incomes used to qualify for the loan? IF the husband didn’t intend to make this community property how was he making the payments for the home– through his community or seperate funds?[/quote]

The law is pretty clear on this issue, and vesting as separate property isn’t necessary. Even if the property was vested as community property, if the down payment came from separate property, it can come out as separate property.

[SK in CV]

Assuming we’re talking about California residents and California property, and there is no net equity in the home, the answers are pretty clear.

A. No
B. No, wife does not owe husband anything. If the only loan is the purchase money mortgage, the property itself is the only security for the loan.
C. No

If there is positive equity in the house, the husband is entitled to get the first $100K back first if he can trace the down payment from a separate account.

See Ca Family Code §2640.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It’s perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.[/quote]

It doesn’t seem we’re really that far off. My car (Hyundai elantra) weighs 2700 lbs and I get 45 mpg freeway driving and 35 on city streets. Is a 20 to 25% increase out of the question?

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]
What we’ve had since the mid-90s has been (deliberate?) instability. If you think otherwise, you’re barking delusional. Or just using an extremely limited time scale.

[/quote]

Please pay attention. I said the last 3 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]
BTW, the upward channel since 2012 has been coincident with (OMG, YOU GUESSED IT!) active QE. Look at a graph :)[/quote]

That’s why I said the fed has been masterful the last 3 years. They’re doing exactly what they’re charged with doing. Maximum employment and financial stability. What they’ve done has worked.

[Author]

Posts