[surveyor]

title report

I would recommend a title report (about $100) and maybe an abstract of title to show the progress of how title items have been attached to the property. If the title report or abstract can show that a lien was placed on the property erroneously, you can then show it to Chase and resolve it there.

If Chase doesn’t want to resolve it, you may have to talk to an attorney to have him work on it.

As always, face to face contact is best but if you have the documentation, lay it out for them clearly, they may back down. If they did enter a lien erroneously, you could bring a suit against them for “slander of title.”

But that’s a lawyers thing. Good luck.

[surveyor]

title report

I would recommend a title report (about $100) and maybe an abstract of title to show the progress of how title items have been attached to the property. If the title report or abstract can show that a lien was placed on the property erroneously, you can then show it to Chase and resolve it there.

If Chase doesn’t want to resolve it, you may have to talk to an attorney to have him work on it.

As always, face to face contact is best but if you have the documentation, lay it out for them clearly, they may back down. If they did enter a lien erroneously, you could bring a suit against them for “slander of title.”

But that’s a lawyers thing. Good luck.

[surveyor]

title report

I would recommend a title report (about $100) and maybe an abstract of title to show the progress of how title items have been attached to the property. If the title report or abstract can show that a lien was placed on the property erroneously, you can then show it to Chase and resolve it there.

If Chase doesn’t want to resolve it, you may have to talk to an attorney to have him work on it.

As always, face to face contact is best but if you have the documentation, lay it out for them clearly, they may back down. If they did enter a lien erroneously, you could bring a suit against them for “slander of title.”

But that’s a lawyers thing. Good luck.

[surveyor]

title report

I would recommend a title report (about $100) and maybe an abstract of title to show the progress of how title items have been attached to the property. If the title report or abstract can show that a lien was placed on the property erroneously, you can then show it to Chase and resolve it there.

If Chase doesn’t want to resolve it, you may have to talk to an attorney to have him work on it.

As always, face to face contact is best but if you have the documentation, lay it out for them clearly, they may back down. If they did enter a lien erroneously, you could bring a suit against them for “slander of title.”

But that’s a lawyers thing. Good luck.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.[/quote]

Correct, not all government employees are less efficient or more expensive than their counterparts. There are plenty of examples when government is being run efficiently. However, by its nature, government is an inefficient enterprise. The forces that would make businesses efficient are either nonexistent or have minimal effect on government.

Also, yes, there are times when businesses do overpay. However, the critical difference is that these businesses actually spend their own money and if they continue mismanagement of that money, they will go out of business. Government is not subject to that particular quality.

But I did want to address a particular statement of yours.

[quote]All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.[/quote]

This is what is called “Zero sum”, the line of thinking that if someone makes money, someone else must have lost that money, that there is a pie that cannot grow bigger and is limited. This particular phenomenon does occur in government.

However, businesses do not work this way. When businesses work, they often create a bigger pie or more pies where nothing existed before. Often the situation businesses create is win-win: the business improves the lives of its workers, through continued work and success. The business also improves the lives of its customers, allowing them access to a new product, superior product, or a cheaper product.

For the zero sum situation to be valid, there wouldn’t be much improvement in mankind’s society, even as time goes on.

However, as the United States has shown, businesses and its capitalist system have not only created millionaires where there were previously NONE (“The Millionaire Next Door” – 80% of new millionaires are first generation), it has also brought up many workers of those businesses and improved their quality of life. There are many technologies and benefits that were available to only the richest before but are now available even to the poorest of the United States.

When you see people on welfare having LCD tv’s and iPhone’s, sometimes you gotta admit that the United States must not be that bad for the poor.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.[/quote]

Correct, not all government employees are less efficient or more expensive than their counterparts. There are plenty of examples when government is being run efficiently. However, by its nature, government is an inefficient enterprise. The forces that would make businesses efficient are either nonexistent or have minimal effect on government.

Also, yes, there are times when businesses do overpay. However, the critical difference is that these businesses actually spend their own money and if they continue mismanagement of that money, they will go out of business. Government is not subject to that particular quality.

But I did want to address a particular statement of yours.

[quote]All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.[/quote]

This is what is called “Zero sum”, the line of thinking that if someone makes money, someone else must have lost that money, that there is a pie that cannot grow bigger and is limited. This particular phenomenon does occur in government.

However, businesses do not work this way. When businesses work, they often create a bigger pie or more pies where nothing existed before. Often the situation businesses create is win-win: the business improves the lives of its workers, through continued work and success. The business also improves the lives of its customers, allowing them access to a new product, superior product, or a cheaper product.

For the zero sum situation to be valid, there wouldn’t be much improvement in mankind’s society, even as time goes on.

However, as the United States has shown, businesses and its capitalist system have not only created millionaires where there were previously NONE (“The Millionaire Next Door” – 80% of new millionaires are first generation), it has also brought up many workers of those businesses and improved their quality of life. There are many technologies and benefits that were available to only the richest before but are now available even to the poorest of the United States.

When you see people on welfare having LCD tv’s and iPhone’s, sometimes you gotta admit that the United States must not be that bad for the poor.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.[/quote]

Correct, not all government employees are less efficient or more expensive than their counterparts. There are plenty of examples when government is being run efficiently. However, by its nature, government is an inefficient enterprise. The forces that would make businesses efficient are either nonexistent or have minimal effect on government.

Also, yes, there are times when businesses do overpay. However, the critical difference is that these businesses actually spend their own money and if they continue mismanagement of that money, they will go out of business. Government is not subject to that particular quality.

But I did want to address a particular statement of yours.

[quote]All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.[/quote]

This is what is called “Zero sum”, the line of thinking that if someone makes money, someone else must have lost that money, that there is a pie that cannot grow bigger and is limited. This particular phenomenon does occur in government.

However, businesses do not work this way. When businesses work, they often create a bigger pie or more pies where nothing existed before. Often the situation businesses create is win-win: the business improves the lives of its workers, through continued work and success. The business also improves the lives of its customers, allowing them access to a new product, superior product, or a cheaper product.

For the zero sum situation to be valid, there wouldn’t be much improvement in mankind’s society, even as time goes on.

However, as the United States has shown, businesses and its capitalist system have not only created millionaires where there were previously NONE (“The Millionaire Next Door” – 80% of new millionaires are first generation), it has also brought up many workers of those businesses and improved their quality of life. There are many technologies and benefits that were available to only the richest before but are now available even to the poorest of the United States.

When you see people on welfare having LCD tv’s and iPhone’s, sometimes you gotta admit that the United States must not be that bad for the poor.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.[/quote]

Correct, not all government employees are less efficient or more expensive than their counterparts. There are plenty of examples when government is being run efficiently. However, by its nature, government is an inefficient enterprise. The forces that would make businesses efficient are either nonexistent or have minimal effect on government.

Also, yes, there are times when businesses do overpay. However, the critical difference is that these businesses actually spend their own money and if they continue mismanagement of that money, they will go out of business. Government is not subject to that particular quality.

But I did want to address a particular statement of yours.

[quote]All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.[/quote]

This is what is called “Zero sum”, the line of thinking that if someone makes money, someone else must have lost that money, that there is a pie that cannot grow bigger and is limited. This particular phenomenon does occur in government.

However, businesses do not work this way. When businesses work, they often create a bigger pie or more pies where nothing existed before. Often the situation businesses create is win-win: the business improves the lives of its workers, through continued work and success. The business also improves the lives of its customers, allowing them access to a new product, superior product, or a cheaper product.

For the zero sum situation to be valid, there wouldn’t be much improvement in mankind’s society, even as time goes on.

However, as the United States has shown, businesses and its capitalist system have not only created millionaires where there were previously NONE (“The Millionaire Next Door” – 80% of new millionaires are first generation), it has also brought up many workers of those businesses and improved their quality of life. There are many technologies and benefits that were available to only the richest before but are now available even to the poorest of the United States.

When you see people on welfare having LCD tv’s and iPhone’s, sometimes you gotta admit that the United States must not be that bad for the poor.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.[/quote]

Correct, not all government employees are less efficient or more expensive than their counterparts. There are plenty of examples when government is being run efficiently. However, by its nature, government is an inefficient enterprise. The forces that would make businesses efficient are either nonexistent or have minimal effect on government.

Also, yes, there are times when businesses do overpay. However, the critical difference is that these businesses actually spend their own money and if they continue mismanagement of that money, they will go out of business. Government is not subject to that particular quality.

But I did want to address a particular statement of yours.

[quote]All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.[/quote]

This is what is called “Zero sum”, the line of thinking that if someone makes money, someone else must have lost that money, that there is a pie that cannot grow bigger and is limited. This particular phenomenon does occur in government.

However, businesses do not work this way. When businesses work, they often create a bigger pie or more pies where nothing existed before. Often the situation businesses create is win-win: the business improves the lives of its workers, through continued work and success. The business also improves the lives of its customers, allowing them access to a new product, superior product, or a cheaper product.

For the zero sum situation to be valid, there wouldn’t be much improvement in mankind’s society, even as time goes on.

However, as the United States has shown, businesses and its capitalist system have not only created millionaires where there were previously NONE (“The Millionaire Next Door” – 80% of new millionaires are first generation), it has also brought up many workers of those businesses and improved their quality of life. There are many technologies and benefits that were available to only the richest before but are now available even to the poorest of the United States.

When you see people on welfare having LCD tv’s and iPhone’s, sometimes you gotta admit that the United States must not be that bad for the poor.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]
Price/volume relationships have nothing do with taxes. People don’t “buy” more taxes when the price goes down.[/quote]

Hobie’s point is that a business gets more customers when it lowers its prices. Through volume, the business is better able to increase its revenues even though its price is low. There are more people available to purchase at a low price point vs. a high price point.

A similar thing happens when taxes are low. If taxes are low, there is less incentive to avoid paying taxes, thereby opening up more people to be susceptible to taxes.

Case in point: John Kerry preferred to keep his yacht in Rhode Island (low taxes), as opposed to Massachussets (higher taxes). Even though he was rich, he still wanted to avoid paying such an onerous tax.

[Author]

Posts