Ethics of Real Estate Investment, NIMYism and the Housing Crisis

pheller said:

I propose the rules unfairly benefit one group more than the other, more needy group.

You disagree, because you are in the unfairly benefited group. 

If you fight the rule change using all the resources at your disposal, what does that make you?  

From a historical perspective, the American colonies tried at length to change the rules. When the King refused again and again, they were left with only one option. How would history have played out if the American Revolution never used violence to achieve its goals? 

It's interesting how some in this thread propose that "change" can be too hastey, and lead to unintended consquences, but I'd argue that violence has far more unpredictable outcomes. 

Do you even realize how ridiculous that statement is? 

Did you study history or anything? The largest reason for the Revolutionary War was the onerous taxes imposed by a government that didn't listen to its citizens. Yet here you are suggesting that onerous taxes is the way to avoid a civil war. 

Did you perhaps forget who owns the large majority of the guns in this country? It isn't the people crying for new taxes, that's for sure.

How stupidly funny. 

Laughs in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. 

Onerous to who? 

Those at the top don't need to rebel. They can get what they want through corruption. 

Those at the bottom are not impacted by the taxes being proposed. 

All of us in the middle get squeezed by those at the top telling us that those at the bottom benefit from sharing that burden, while secretly being able to avoid it through various mechanisms they themselves allow. 

Ironically, the average American colonist paid very little in taxes, but was convinced to fight by his wealthy countrymen. Same as it ever was. 

https://taxfoundation.org/taxation-representation-american-revolution/

In reply to pheller :

Where do you think taxes come from? Do you think the rich pay them? Or companies? Guess where they get the money from.

Nevermind, y'all are beyond logic.

There is so much willful ignorance in here it boggles the mind. Small-minded people, unwilling to better themselves but more than willing to use a corrupt government to steal from others for their own benefit.

I give up. Wallow in your idiocy, I can't help you.

In reply to pheller :

You can't seem to break the cycle of them vs us. 
 

We The People made the choice to go to war and declare our independence. 1 nation. Some fought, some found loopholes. Some were rich, some were not.

I have NO interest in any conversation the tries to blame others.  I am responsible for my own life. I choose to live it in cooperation with other people as best I can, not in division. I won't support taking something that belongs to 1 person and redistributing it. Period. 
 

I raised 5 kids on a single income that averaged less than $30,000 for over 20 years. I am now closing on retirement, and I am content. I have a much larger net worth than most people my age. I have also given away much more than most people. I am not ashamed of what I have done.

You are a fortunate man. You are very intelligent, and live a lifestyle that puts you in the 10% worldwide. Possibly the 1% worldwide. You are a creative thinker with a healthy family. 
 

Put it to work. Don't hoard your gifts and talents. Give to the things that concern you, get into public service, start a charity, USE your good fortune to help address the things that concern you. 
 

But don't do it with other people's money. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html

"Wealth redistribution is higher in Democratic-leaning counties

Charitable contributions may be lower in Democratic-leaning counties, but residents support the social safety net through higher taxes.

The study found that Democratic counties, like Holmes County, Mo., which is on the higher end of the giving spectrum, provide more over all to charitable causes, but through a combination of what the authors call voluntary giving, like charity, and involuntary giving, which the rest of us call taxes.

Taxpayers would seem to have little say in their tax-based funding, but opting to live in those counties shows a willingness to be taxed and have the government support causes they believe in.

“The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.”

Higher tax burdens can drive down charitable giving as government policy crowds out private philanthropy, Dr. Christensen said. “Our evidence suggests that Republican counties are more sensitive to the crowding-out effects of taxation on charitable giving than Democratic counties,” he said.

Charitable giving does not match government aid

Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

On the other hand, private philanthropy can do many things better than government aid, as in being responsive to a need and willing to fail without political fallout.

The study’s authors make the case for a combination approach.

“They’re complementary means of redistribution of wealth rather than substitutions for each other,” Dr. Christensen said. “We can’t put all of our eggs in one basket.”"

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0899764018804088

pheller said:

All I'm saying is, eff it. Lets change things. 

In my experience, "change" is a highly reliable yet subtle way to punish thoughtfulness.

It all comes down to the third law of thermodynamics "entropy" where highly organized people (those that developed and executed a sophisticated life plan) experience far more denigration than highly unorganized people (those that just let life hit them) when the system is "changed".

I'm pretty sure that's the general plan though; right?

In reply to pheller :

So places with forced "giving" (aka taxes) have more money to redistribute?  Duh. That's a stupid study. 

Coupe things.

Some one was talking about tax laws and rules being fair. No rules when it comes to tax law and who pay what is fair. Someone always gets screwed. At this point if you want to move towards fairness, you start removing laws and regulation, especially in the tax code. We are currently incapable of writing a simple law like vehicle registration without unfairness or massive bus sized loopholes written right in. You cant tax someone into prosperity, time to let people keep more of their money and make it easier for them to succeed. Also its wild that more tha half of Americans dont pay any income tax.

Second, you cannot tax the ultra wealthy that you want to tax. If you have a super high income and the gov wants to raise your tax rate by 1%, that 1% is a bunch of money, it is in your best interest to instead use that money if not more to find a way around the taxes, the returns compound every year you exploit those tax savings. This mean when they try to tax the "ultra wealthy" it slips off the back of who they say the target is, and is smashes directly into the shrinking middle class. The ultra wealthy essentially have unlimited budgets to fight the tax code, the people that always get promised their taxes wont go up dont.

Personally I think If there has to be a tax a flat tax would be the best. Every single person making a cent of income pays flat tax on it. I think we'd start to see some fiscal responsibility real quick and youd probably hear a lot less of "its only a couple bucks, id pay that for X" from people that literally dont pay any income taxes.

pheller said:

Others fight that saying they've worked by the previously laid rules and shouldn't be punished. 

 

Punished for what? Earning more than you? What would someone playing by the rules be punished for? You have the same opportunity and the same rules, what you do with that is none of my business. I'll take it back to Real Estate.  My tax bill this year is $51,000.  How much more should I pay to be "fair"?

RX Reven' said:

pheller said:

All I'm saying is, eff it. Lets change things. 

In my experience, "change" is a highly reliable yet subtle way to punish thoughtfulness.

It all comes down to the third law of thermodynamics "entropy" where highly organized people (those that developed and executed a sophisticated life plan) experience far more denigration than highly unordered people (those that just let life hit them) when the system is "changed".

I'm pretty sure that's the general plan though; right?

I mean I get it - you put yourself on a track towards success and you want things to remain stable, loopholes and secrets to success included. 

But that's like saying slavery should not have been abolished because peoples livelihoods depended on it. They knew it was wrong. They saw it coming. 

I know natural gas burns fossil fuels that contribute to global warming, and our dependence on it as a heat source does not help moving to a cleaner future, but I still vote like I hate the industry I work for. Why? Because I also know that its highly unlikely my job will be threatened by anything short of an immediate energy revolution, and even then, highly unlikely, so I don't feel threatened by the "change" because I know I shouldn't be, and because all the other "changes" are beneficial, or so I hope. 

There is a lot of fear in this 58 page thread about some lazy MFers getting handouts, and some hard working Americans having their fortunes stolen from them. When in American history has that ever happened aside from when companies and capitalists closed factories and shipped job overseas in the name of profits? Or companies fighting health insurance claims about cancer rampant in their industry? Or billions of dollars in retirement funds wiped out due to people ignoring the warning signs of the very people who aimed to strike it rich when the cards tumbled? Or black and brown and native people having their lands and way of life stolen from them? 

When have poor people, the bottom of American society, ever punched up? Hell, when have the majority of Americans ever punched up and had the results be anything more than a momentary win?

I'd argue that never. The majority of Americans are almost always negatively impacted by those higher on the income scale. 

Those who hold the pursue strings also hold the power. 

Steve_Jones said:

pheller said:

Others fight that saying they've worked by the previously laid rules and shouldn't be punished. 

 

Punished for what? Earning more than you? What would someone playing by the rules be punished for? You have the same opportunity and the same rules, what you do with that is none of my business. I'll take it back to Real Estate.  My tax bill this year is $51,000.  How much more should I pay to be "fair"?

I dunno, I guess it depends on how much income you stand to make on your real estate?  If the tax bill is making you apply for social assistance, than I'd say it's too much. If you come out the other end having made money and the local municipality is able to fund its expenses, then I'd say you're good. 

If the local roads, schools, and infrastructure is crap, it's time to take a look at the where the money is going. My guess? Lots of expensive infrastructure and people who demand high prices to maintain it, likely because they also pay high taxes in some form or another. 

Do you think that your tax bill is being funneled unfairly to one person in particular? Or a group of people who are too highly paid? 

In reply to pheller :

Income? None, it's my house.  How much income do you make on your house? Infrastructure? It's on a 2 lane road, well and septic. There is no infrastructure.  As far as "loopholes" or "secrets" as you stated, they're not either since they are available to everyone, you included. I'm sorry you are not doing as well as you think you should be in life, but it's not my fault.

Toyman! said:

In reply to pheller :

Where do you think taxes come from? Do you think the rich pay them? Or companies? Guess where they get the money from.

Nevermind, y'all are beyond logic.

There is so much willful ignorance in here it boggles the mind. Small-minded people, unwilling to better themselves but more than willing to use a corrupt government to steal from others for their own benefit.

I give up. Wallow in your idiocy, I can't help you.

 

 

Welcome. I've been waiting for you to make it. Ron White was a f'n prophet. 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to pheller :

Income? None, it's my house.  How much income do you make on your house? Infrastructure? It's on a 2 lane road, well and septic. There is no infrastructure.  As far as "loopholes" or "secrets" as you stated, they're not either since they are available to everyone, you included. I'm sorry you are not doing as well as you think you should be in life, but it's not my fault.

What about when you sell? Or when your kids sell? Or when you grandkids sell? 

Provided it stays in your family for eternity, then ok, yea, the income potential is null.

Value is a big contributor to assessment. If your neighbors are all selling their land for a few hundred grand an acre, it doesn't matter if you've got a shack on your land and your out in the middle of no-where, your land value is increased because it is expected that eventually you too will sell for similar prices. 

The other thing to think about is the income potential of your location relative to the job market. If you live in a high-income area, you are more likely to make an income that can pay those taxes. 

Now, that being said, if your an hour away from a major job market and your commute is all two lane roads, I would start to question why your taxes are so high. Is it because of your neighbors? Do they have huge expensive mansions? Or recent sales of land thru the roof? 

This topic is actually one that has been prominent in Australia, where they have a land value stamp tax. IE, you pay low taxes until you sell, then you pay a tax based on the value of the land. The problem is that people hold onto land, or pass it down to kids or whatever. As a result, the locals are running out of tax funding for infrastructure, and they pass that onto non-primary land holders - ie, people who own rentals or commercial property. Then the tenants bare the increased taxes in order to fund infrastructure. So some areas have implemented an expanded annual LVT (applied to all land, primary residence or otherwise) along with Stamp Tax, and its created quite the stir. It's reduced taxes applied to commercial land, but now primary residents who passed down land to the next generations are also paying annual taxes. Either way, it's all based on land value. 

Just as I have a right to question whether someones property taxes are TOO LOW you have the right to question why your property taxes are TOO HIGH. I'll defend your ability to raise those concerns. 

In reply to pheller :

It took 58 pages to move the goalposts from people are not paying enough in property tax to I might be paying too much, but here we are. 

I think you think too much in absolutes, and you think I think that way too. 

I'm open to nuance. Are you? 

pheller said:

I think you think too much in absolutes, and you think I think that way too. 

I'm open to nuance. Are you? 

I'm open to many things including being happy for those that have more than me vs jealous of them and calling them cheaters and crooks. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I'm still trying to figure out what your yearly property tax bill has to do with the bill when you sell.

In reply to z31maniac :

Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume he's wondering how much higher his property taxes would have to be to satisfy pheller's demands.  I don't think it has much if anything to do with selling the property.

Property taxes are typically determine by market value. When we sell, we pay a capitol gains tax. 

Unfortunately, property taxes often do not accurately represent the properties potential value to an individual as a means of earning income.

For example, I can own a valuable piece of land that is taxed high because all my neighbors built multi-million dollar mansion on similar proprieties, but yet, there is no local work to be found. How do I pay my property taxes if I cant work locally? 

My guess is that Steve lives in a county with extremely high wages and higher government funding requirements, but he lives in a rural area far away from those metros. He ends up with a tax bill that is similar to folks who live in the urban area, right down the street from high-paying employers, but he does not have the same access to income. 

Duke said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume he's wondering how much higher his property taxes would have to be to satisfy pheller's demands.  I don't think it has much if anything to do with selling the property.

 

That's 100% it. I'm just curious how much he deems is enough. The best part is him now arguing for lower property tax, when this entire thread was started because "someone" wasn't paying enough property tax. 
 

And for the love of god, it's capitAl gains, not capitOl gains. 

In reply to pheller :

58 pages into this and you still haven't shown that this is a real problem. 
 

Where are these places that people are hoarding valuable property JUST for the purpose of running the resale up for profit?

I've never seen it. I think this entire thread is based on a fabricated fear that doesn't exist. 

In reply to SV reX :

It exists in his head because he's not happy with the level he is at in life and it must be someone else's fault.

The goal posts never stop moving. There seem to be completely fabricated "facts" on almost every page of this thread with no basis in reality designed to try to win an argument and defend a position against a boogey man that doesn't even exist.