Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=CA renter]Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.
[/quote]
They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.
While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).
Participantyou didn’t mention your price range, but if you can afford it, Del Mar, has all those things.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Just curious, SK – is your brother an identical or fraternal twin? In any event, I completely agree with you. I can’t tell whether people are more interested in patting themselves on the back for their good habits or in condemning those who they believe have bad habits. (And who knows which is which? My mother traded in butter for margarine in the 70s because it was supposed to be a healthier alternative, and it’s full of trans fats.)[/quote]
We’re fraternal twins. I have the hereditary things that my parents had. Hypertension, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol (all of them very well controlled with low doses of drugs, and a reasonably good diet). He doesn’t have any of those things. Just a shitload of other things that aren’t very hereditary.
ParticipantSeen somewhere on the internets:
If you think fertilized eggs are people but refugee kids aren’t, you’re going to have to stop pretending your concerns are religious.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I also believe that the Democratic Party uses this as an issue to pander for votes. [/quote]I guess you could call it pandering. If pandering is using very real issue position differences in order to win elections. I wouldn’t.[/quote]
SK: Aw, c’mon! My point about pandering had NO validity?
And said while a corporatist shill, and panderer, like Hillary waits in the wings?[/quote]
No, I don’t think it’s pandering. There is lots of pandering that goes on in most elections. And I have no doubt that Clinton is one of the true masters. (Though I think calling her a corporate shill isn’t accurate. She and her husband ARE the third way. That would be like calling Rand Paul a shill for his type of libertarianism.) I don’t think this issue is one of them. Particularly as compared to say…voting restrictions.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I also believe that the Democratic Party uses this as an issue to pander for votes. [/quote]I guess you could call it pandering. If pandering is using very real issue position differences in order to win elections. I wouldn’t.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As to the “War on Women”: Are we discussing the actual war on women, or the vote-getting scheme as practiced by the Democratic Party?[/quote]The actual one. Whereby more anti-abortion laws were enacted in the last 3 years than had been enacted in the previous 10 years combined. And that was only through last year. The harshest restrictions have been passed this year. And more recently, the attack on contraceptives. But only contraceptives for women. A third of women in this country live in counties without abortion providers. A dozen states have only have a small handful of providers in the entire state. Unless it’s changed recently, Kansas has 1. For the entire state, due to legal restrictions. It’s a real thing, not an imaginary one.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?
Do you really believe that there is no war on women?
ParticipantThe S&P just finished 6 consecutive up quarters. That’s the most consecutive up quarters in 14 years. It’s also been trading within a relatively narrow channel for the last 10 quarters, and every time it gets near the top of that channel, it pulls back pretty sharply. For most of this year, it’s been floating in the middle. But it’s approached the top of the channel recently. Near term, the top of that channel is 2,000. (It’s moving at about 25 pts/qtr) And now we’re into another earnings season. Barring any significant earnings surprises, and big world events, I expect that if it hits 2000 in the next couple weeks, it could fall back 100-150 pts pretty quickly. If it doesn’t, it could float in the 1975-1925 range (or slightly lower) for much of the next quarter without a significant pull back, much as it floated mid-channel around 1850 from mid-Feb to mid-May.
All that said, I’m nervous about earnings. I bought a Dec S&P put 6 mos out 10% below current strike as insurance for my long stuff.
I was up on the S&P by a point the 1st half of the year, which was disappointing. I’d love to blame it on having regular work to do the 1st 3 months of the year and not trading near as much, but I can’t. 1st quarter killed, 2nd quarter was almost exactly flat.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I am not sure from the data you reveal, but it seems the property got a temporary assessment reduction while either you or the previous owner owned it. It doesn’t matter, the Assessor has the right to now “catch up” with the market value if it is rising rapidly. In other words, the 2% per year Proposition 13 rule does not apply yet in this case.
Now if you bought it for $300k in 2010 and the Assessor now wants to tax it based on a value of $313k, it seems to me you have a good deal since properties have appreciated so much since 2010.
If you think you are overassessed, would you consider selling the property at $313k?[/quote]Not exactly right. Any temporary reduction during the previous ownership is immaterial. The property was reassessed upon change of ownership. The “catch-up” can only relate to the current ownership. With a cap of 2% a year increase, the max increase over the roughly 4 years of ownership is about $24K. (It may be only 3 years, depending on the exact dates of transfer) Even with the increase to $313K, the current owner’s assessment increase is only about 1/2 of the maximum allowed.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Really? You think that today’s foods have no more added/synthetic chemicals in them than foods from 100+ years ago? No higher concentrations of chemicals that are considered toxic or possibly carcinogenic?[/quote]
I didn’t say that. I said that the “vast majority of added chemicals are already in foods we eat”. If manufacturers take sugar from a beet and put it in soda, we’re just changing the mix. All “synthetic” chemicals are exactly the same as their naturally occurring counterparts. The two most toxic to human chemicals that have ever been identified are “natural”. (botulinum and tetanospasmin) Only one man made toxin has ever been developed that’s 1 millionth as toxic.
Some concentrations have changed. In the US population, our diets ARE a problem. But it’s not the natural/synthetic that’s the problem.
(And just exactly who decided what was “intended” to be eaten? Somebody built our bodies and decided that we should be sucking milk from a cows teat?)
Participant[quote=CA renter]
There are natural foods that don’t have added chemicals…chemicals that were never intended by nature to be eaten. Just look at most labels in the supermarket and tell me that people were eating that crap 100+ years ago.[/quote]
Natural foods are made up entirely of chemicals. The vast majority of added chemicals are already in foods we eat. They are “natural”. It almost hurts to write those words. The quote shouldn’t be necessary. Everything we eat is natural. What’s changed is the proportions.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
As for eating differently now that we are more sedentary? I agree, but the food corporations are making more and more chemical-laden foods that are “quickly and easily prepared” for all those drones who come home after 10 hours at work. It’s not an easy transition.[/quote]You do realize that every single bite of food you have ever eaten is made up of chemicals, right?
There has been no change in the % of chemicals in human diets. Ever.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]That’s right SK. I just rechecked. On CoveredCA a platinum. Pl an for a 40 yo single is basically $400
At 50 it’s $500
At 55its $750
At 60 it’s $860
And 64 it’s $950
So from 40 to 60 the basis more than doubles and a cost have double digit inflation rate. Basically at a rate to double over 7 years. So by the time the 40 year old that is paying $400 today will be paying $3200/month in future dollars per month in twenty years
[/quote]
That is not inflation. Inflation is price increases over time. These are prices at a single point in time. There is nothing in that data set that would properly lead to a conclusion about what premiums might be in 20 years.
-
AuthorPosts
