[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, if there is enough “new household formation” in the PHX area to fill 1100 new units a few weeks/months from now, there must be a lot of companies moving in, no?

Where are all these new residents going to work? I say “new” because how many of the residents filling these *new* units do you think will actually be locals? I could see moving from an apt/condo to an SFR but why move to another apt?

Isn’t apt rent and even SFR rent pretty cheap (by SD stds) in PHX?

Maybe a waitress and a bellhop or two “telemarketers” can easily buy a home in PHX … I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t make the news, I only report it. Which is my way of saying…i have no f’ing clue who is buying these homes. I remember thinking the same thing in SD 5 or 6 years ago.

One possible answer that Phx has that SD doesn’t have all that much of is snow birds. Everything from low end to very high end condo complexes are as much as 50% part year residents. So improvement in the economy nationwide, along with some baby boomers retiring with a few bucks will drive the 2nd home market. No new household formation needed.

Rent is cheap I think compared to SD. Though for a good while, buying was even cheaper. Morseso I think than in SD. (Units that rented for $1000 to $1100 a month selling for under $100K.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]sdduuuude, McBride’s graph is for SAAR (Scottsdale [AZ] Assn of Realtors), no?

Has there been more building going on in metro Phoenix in recent years than SD County? From his graph, it looks as though there has been.

I can’t understand that since the Phoenix metro area is grossly overbuilt.

[/quote]

Those are national numbers. 2012 was a bit under 400K units nationwide. (I’m not sure why the graph shows a rate of over 400K most every month.)

Believe it or not, homes are being built in Phx. It may have been grossly overbuilt 5 years ago, but prices rose pretty decently last year, and distressed sales of all kinds are on a sharp decline. There’s 700 condo units being built a few blocks away from me, and I have never seen a building go up faster. They’re working 7 days a week. Same developer just broke ground on another 400 units.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Thx Sk. I find it interesting that some cities ( San Marino) go after service trades like landscapers,or anyone with a name on a work truck for business license fee but let the big $ get a pass.

Maybe when Mickelson say 63% taxes he is lumping in other ‘fees’ as well.

I do this with fees, permits, tax. Gives me a better estimate of the true cost of business. You know, ‘for the privilege of doing business ..’

End snark as I’m writing out tax checks now and not happy.[/quote]

The thing is with those fees and permits, they’re meaningful for some small businesses. $100 here, $150 there. In his original whine, Phil also included disability and unemployment. Almost every employee in CA pays SDI, it had a cap last year of $956. Employees and the self-employed don’t pay unemployment insurance, employers do. but even if he’s counting himself as his own employer because he’s incorporated some part of his business, the most he might pay is probably $500 a year. Those little costs are annoying, and even meaningful for a small business making $50K a year, but they’re not enough to make anyone leave the state.

But for Phil? If he pays them, they amount to less than .01% of his income. Not 1%. One one-hudredth of one percent. About a dollar out of every $30,000 he earns. He looks foolish even mentioning them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=meadandale][quote=SK in CV]He’s overstated his tax rate by at least 10%. He doesn’t pay anywhere near 62 or 63% as he claimed. It can’t be anymore than 52%.[/quote]

Top Fed Rate (39.6) + Top CA Rate (12.3) + Full Fica + New surcharge (15.3 + 0.9) = 68.1%

Since he makes most of his money above the margin where these rates kick in most of his money is taxed at the full rates.[/quote]

No. I was wrong on the 52%, it’s closer to 55%.

FICA for 2012 was 4.2%. It’s 10.4% if he’s self employed. But only on the first $110K. For 2013 it’s 6.2 and 12.4 respectively on the first $113,700. Mickelson is reported to have earned $48 million. So the most he could have paid in 2012 was around $11,500. In 2013 it will be about $14K. Which is less than .03% of his income.

He’ll also be able to deduct 20% of CA tax, bringing his net tax down by 1%.

39.6 + 3.8% surcharge + CA tax 13.3%, FICA .03%, less value of state tax deduction of 1% = 56%. But he still gets the benefits of the lower rates on taxable income under $450K federal and $1M for CA, which would bring his net rate below 55%.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Do these golfers/football/baseball players have to obtain a city of San Diego business license and pay associated fees?

Same goes for winnings in other states. Are they subject to that state income tax plus their home state income tax?[/quote]

No license required. They do have to pay taxes to the various states in which they have earnings. But they don’t pay double state taxes. If their home state has income taxes, they get credit for taxes paid to other states. Though the various state laws didn’t change, states started enforcing their existing laws and collecting taxes from professional athletes that had earnings in their states in the early 80’s, based on (for instance) the number of games their teams played in their states.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]Scrapbooking retreat.
I have friends who put on these scrapping workshop weekends. This looks like the places they rent.[/quote]

Friends huh? C’mon, spill it. Are you a secret scrapper?

[SK in CV]

He’s overstated his tax rate by at least 10%. He doesn’t pay anywhere near 62 or 63% as he claimed. It can’t be anymore than 52%.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=flu]
Well, since most of my earnings this year is in an IRA, I guess I don’t need to pay for it, not now at least….Lol….[/quote]

I know you’ve heard of a required minimum distribution.

Have you heard of the Excessive Distribution Minimum Tax?[/quote]

That was repealed in the TRA of ’97. I don’t think it’s been reinstated.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]Well I’ve “earned it”. I definitely deserve not to be taxed more for it… And I’m glad everyone agrees I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes for it. Even if it didn’t come from traditional “sweat equity”….Oh wait….[/quote]

You don’t pay more taxes for it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Here you go.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

These programs do exist.

************

Again, go to my first post in this thread. That it is not the actual spending, it is the entitlement attitude that has been so successfully harnessed and hammered into the population. It is not about how much hard work it will take to get out of the rut you are in. It is more about someone else must bear the responsibility of lifting you out of that rut. It is their fault and they must pay for it.[/quote]

No, that doesn’t prove any expansion of specific programs, only increases in costs.

You, and Romney and many other Republicans call it the “entitlement attitude”. The givers v. the takers. The vast majority of that 47% are retiree social security beneficiaries. Double down on that. Over and over again. See how it works out for you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
You show me the numbers saying that they have not been expanded. Show me that no new programs exist at any state or local levels either. Show me that there are no programs that exclude middle class families that participation. Show me that these programs have not expanded or contracted.[/quote]

Kind of hard for me to show you what doesn’t exist.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]You don’t get it SK. Expansion doesn’t matter. The facts don’t matter. You tell me, have the number of people vying for the benefits increased? That is what matters. The volume of voters is what counts. That larger volume gets told that they should be given what others have earned.[/quote]

So you can’t come up with anything where benefits have actually been expanded?

There are more people on food stamps. There are more people on unemployment. Because there are more people unemployed and poor. But this has not been a policy change, it’s been created by a change in economic conditions. That is what matters. Fix the economy, these will all drop dramatically.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]

Wait until you compare medicare plans with medicaid plans. Kinda funny that the medicaid plans pay out more in many many cases then medicare….Lol…[/quote]

I’m not sure where you got that information, but it’s wrong. There are a few benefits that medicaid covers in some states that medicare does not. But overall, medicaid pays providers significantly less than medicare does. Medi-Cal, for instance, pays for some dental and eye care (for children only for the last couple years), but Medicare doesn’t currently cover it. Beyond that, in CA, reimbursements for medicaid services generally havent increased in years, on some cases, they haven’t increased in decades.

But hospitals lose money on medicaid patients. Most can come close to break even on medicare reimbursements, and at current reimbursement rates, it would be profitable if not for the uninsured.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
No these programs have not been cut or decreased. You are not correct. more important, the number of people needing the assistance has grown. [/quote]

Which programs have expanded benefits in the last 8 years?

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]I believe what is also killing off the middle class is the entitlement attitude that our society has taken on. I believe that the tipping point has been reached with regards to a fundamental cycle that will be hard to break. That is, a ruling political party will continue to promise the lower income strata welfare in exchange for votes. As this strata grows in population, the resources needed to support them will grow. Resources will slowly be peeled away from the middle class in order to support the growing strata who will then continue to vote in support of politicians who promise to feed the machine. This of course is and will continue to be done under the guise of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor but the middle class bears the brunt of the transfer. It is done not only through taxation but also for programs such as access to education and other programs that the middle class will are and will be deemed “to wealthy” to take advantage of…. see college education for instance.[/quote]

Why is this true now, when it wasn’t true 8 years ago? Have there been significant expansion in eligibility and benefits in welfare programs since then? I think in actuality, most benefits have been cut, not increased.

[Author]

Posts