Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM in reply to: We are now within 5% of BOTTOM in for $600K and up SD RE market. #139918January 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM in reply to: We are now within 5% of BOTTOM in for $600K and up SD RE market. #139946
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSchizo, could you hold this knife for me for just a sec….
January 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM in reply to: We are now within 5% of BOTTOM in for $600K and up SD RE market. #139992ParticipantSchizo, could you hold this knife for me for just a sec….
ParticipantFree market problems,
Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.
Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.
The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.
ParticipantFree market problems,
Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.
Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.
The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.
ParticipantFree market problems,
Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.
Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.
The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.
ParticipantFree market problems,
Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.
Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.
The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.
ParticipantFree market problems,
Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.
Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.
The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.
ParticipantThis article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
Just my two cents,
XBox
ParticipantThis article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
Just my two cents,
XBox
ParticipantThis article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
Just my two cents,
XBox
ParticipantThis article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
Just my two cents,
XBox
ParticipantThis article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.
As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.
Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.
With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.
On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?
The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)
Just my two cents,
XBox
ParticipantNow this is an interesting twist…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080115-1229-bn15homes.html
After an earlier article today with the headline “Median Home Prices Plummet in County.” Do you think the UT heard from some of their realtor advertisers? Hmmmm… Maybe, since now they’ve posted an article with the headline, “Number of SoCal home sales edge up slightly.” Based on the fact that December sales are better than November sales. (Though they are every year) And despite the fact that December 2007 sales are down a whopping 45% from December 2006. These clowns are just too much!
ParticipantNow this is an interesting twist…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080115-1229-bn15homes.html
After an earlier article today with the headline “Median Home Prices Plummet in County.” Do you think the UT heard from some of their realtor advertisers? Hmmmm… Maybe, since now they’ve posted an article with the headline, “Number of SoCal home sales edge up slightly.” Based on the fact that December sales are better than November sales. (Though they are every year) And despite the fact that December 2007 sales are down a whopping 45% from December 2006. These clowns are just too much!
-
AuthorPosts
