Ethics of Real Estate Investment, NIMYism and the Housing Crisis

GameboyRMH said:

In reply to Duke :

You seem to be operating with the assumption that some kind of perfect, natural supply and demand balance has created the current situation and that any attempts to fetter with it would be tainting it with artificial constraints, setting it out of alignment with reality. I see it as the current situation already being berkeleyed all to hell with artificial constraints which we should not be afraid to fetter with in the process of trying to unberkeley it since it's already completely divorced from reality. There are so many different types and layers of artificial constraints that have led to and are still contributing to the current situation that it's unrealistic to even expect a layman to wrap their head around all of them.

I don't think a "pure" supply and demand situation is necessarily a good one, but the housing market is one of furthest things from that in physical goods.

If we're going to start talking about what's necessary vs. what "makes actual sense" (meaning, is profitable currently), we'll start exposing how bizarre and apparently anti-life economies can become.

So youre saying that the artificial constraints the government has placed on the market has negatively affected it, and you think placing different artificial constraints wont also negatively effect it.

This sounds eerily similar to, that fire is burning really badly because of all the gasoline in it, maybe we can put it out with more gasoline.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I own a rental property in the Fort Worth market. Rents are not going down. I had no desire to raise my rent, I make good money on it, because I bought it right and did the reno myself, so Im in a really good position in it. I made good money on it, renting it well below market rates, but still at a rate I was very happy with. When my last renter moved out, my expenses went up considerably between insurance and taxes, so I raised my rates, but before I did I ran local comps. Even my realtor was surprised at how quickly they were accelerating upwards.

mr2s2000elise said:

RX Reven' said:

mr2s2000elise said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-homeless-navy-ship-2016-9

I believe we've got plenty of homeless shelter capacity as it is...my understanding is that the beds go vacant night after night because people don't want to accept the house rules (drug use, etc.). 

 

If that is the case, never took a drink or drug in my life. Be happy to move my family there, and rent out my Primary. Want to join? 

I'm sincerely honored by the offer but my lips have a property that's yet to be scientifically defined where they can attract a funky micro brew or a dry chardonnay from 30+ feet.

I mean, I'll be minding my own business and all of the sudden, swoosh, an adult drink will be magnetically stuck to my lips. 

BTW, tomorrow is CVCC "Conejo Valley Cars and Coffee"...Aircooled and I would be thrilled if you drove down from Santa Barbara to meet up; thoughts?

In reply to frenchyd :

While I agree with you in principle I think you are going about the wrong way.  
 People hear government this, government that, and they worry about their taxes going up.  
   Don't appeal to their better natures. Some don't care, some have fears, and they don't want to think about it.  
   Appeal to their self interests.   Taxes not paid by the wealthy have to be paid by the working class. 

Why do you think that? You are putting opinions in a math problem again. Government- city, county, state, country- has a budget. They also have revenue (taxes.) One would think that the budget and revenue should make sense with regards to each other, but they often do not. The farther you get from local government, the worse it gets- which is why many people believe that a lot of decisions should be left to the local governments. I'm not going to bore everyone with the details again, but- the "working class" as you see it does not pay much if any taxes. Many get more back than they paid as a form of redistribution. Close to 50% of Americans don't pay any federal taxes. Show me one instance of a tax being paid by the "working class" instead of the wealthy. I 'll wait. 

People paid not enough by an employer( minimum wage) the difference has to be made up by the rest of the tax payers.  In effect workers are subsidizing business owners.  
    Finally poorly paid people  make poor workers.  If they eat gruel, wear Goodwill,  and live in rat infested slums. They won't be reliable trustworthy or creative.  
 

This is absolute bullE36 M3. This is insulting to the vast majority of people who have worked their way up through life. I have employed and worked with hundreds of hard working, creative, trustworthy, low paid workers. I was one of them. I married one of them. Every single member of my family was one of them at some point. I ran restaurants where I employed low wage workers that were much better employees than many I know that make six figures now. We weren't low paid because we were bad workers. We were low paid because that was all that our skills were worth. And we knew that, so we acquired more valuable skills, our our skills to better use, or did more challenging work that was in greater demand. 
 

And if someone chooses low wage work or is only qualified for low wage work, who says the difference needs to be made up by the taxpayer!?! Certainly not me, let people make and live with their own choices. I see working your way up from the bottom rung of the work ladder as not much different from working through years of college to earn a valuable degree. Would you expect tax payers to subsidize an entry level worker to equal a college graduate? I'm guessing not, so why should they be subsidized to equal a more experienced and skilled worker? 

Boost_Crazy said:

And if someone chooses low wage work or is only qualified for low wage work, who says the difference needs to be made up by the taxpayer!?! Certainly not me,

 

I think that would be Wal Mart and McDonalds, and a whole bunch of other companies, and the Federal Government.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Im not sure he saying "its not that way" I think he's saying "it shouldnt be that way"

Hopefully he will clarify

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

While I agree with you in principle I think you are going about the wrong way.  
 People hear government this, government that, and they worry about their taxes going up.  
   Don't appeal to their better natures. Some don't care, some have fears, and they don't want to think about it.  
   Appeal to their self interests.   Taxes not paid by the wealthy have to be paid by the working class. 

Why do you think that? You are putting opinions in a math problem again. Government- city, county, state, country- has a budget. They also have revenue (taxes.) One would think that the budget and revenue should make sense with regards to each other, but they often do not. The farther you get from local government, the worse it gets- which is why many people believe that a lot of decisions should be left to the local governments. I'm not going to bore everyone with the details again, but- the "working class" as you see it does not pay much if any taxes. Many get more back than they paid as a form of redistribution. Close to 50% of Americans don't pay any federal taxes. Show me one instance of a tax being paid by the "working class" instead of the wealthy. I 'll wait. 

People paid not enough by an employer( minimum wage) the difference has to be made up by the rest of the tax payers.  In effect workers are subsidizing business owners.  
    Finally poorly paid people  make poor workers.  If they eat gruel, wear Goodwill,  and live in rat infested slums. They won't be reliable trustworthy or creative.  
 

This is absolute bullE36 M3. This is insulting to the vast majority of people who have worked their way up through life. I have employed and worked with hundreds of hard working, creative, trustworthy, low paid workers. I was one of them. I married one of them. Every single member of my family was one of them at some point. I ran restaurants where I employed low wage workers that were much better employees than many I know that make six figures now. We weren't low paid because we were bad workers. We were low paid because that was all that our skills were worth. And we knew that, so we acquired more valuable skills, our our skills to better use, or did more challenging work that was in greater demand. 
 

And if someone chooses low wage work or is only qualified for low wage work, who says the difference needs to be made up by the taxpayer!?! Certainly not me, let people make and live with their own choices. I see working your way up from the bottom rung of the work ladder as not much different from working through years of college to earn a valuable degree. Would you expect tax payers to subsidize an entry level worker to equal a college graduate? I'm guessing not, so why should they be subsidized to equal a more experienced and skilled worker? 

 

You cannot raise a family on low wages. Those kids who get knocked up in high school and decide to take responsibility for that baby just can't do it. 
  They may be good,smart, hard working kids.  But if the pair of them  each works 2 full time jobs leaving 8 hours a night for sleeping and a few part time jobs on the weekend.  It's not enough. If somehow they avoided eating, and slept in the woods in a tent   Someone gave them.   They still couldn't pay for the baby's birth.  So the tax payers are on the hook. Same if they or the baby gets. sick.  
Let's face it they have to eat and get clothes, and have some place to sleep. 
Then there are things like transportation. And insurance for that car. Luxuries like a knife and fork. Maybe even a spoon. Heck let's go all n and get them one each for both of them.  Then a pan to wash dishes in. Dare they dream about something to actually heat up the food with?   Sheets and pillows?  Maybe a blanket?  
 Some way to wash that stuff and their clothes?  
  My point is minimum wage doesn't  cover  the cost of  even the most frugal living.  So yes the tax payers. You guys have to subsidize the poor.  
  Don't like doing that? Make sure the minimum wage is a living wage. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

While I agree with you in principle I think you are going about the wrong way.  
 People hear government this, government that, and they worry about their taxes going up.  
   Don't appeal to their better natures. Some don't care, some have fears, and they don't want to think about it.  
   Appeal to their self interests.   Taxes not paid by the wealthy have to be paid by the working class. 

Why do you think that? You are putting opinions in a math problem again. Government- city, county, state, country- has a budget. They also have revenue (taxes.) One would think that the budget and revenue should make sense with regards to each other, but they often do not. The farther you get from local government, the worse it gets- which is why many people believe that a lot of decisions should be left to the local governments. I'm not going to bore everyone with the details again, but- the "working class" as you see it does not pay much if any taxes. Many get more back than they paid as a form of redistribution. Close to 50% of Americans don't pay any federal taxes. Show me one instance of a tax being paid by the "working class" instead of the wealthy. I 'll wait. 

People paid not enough by an employer( minimum wage) the difference has to be made up by the rest of the tax payers.  In effect workers are subsidizing business owners.  
    Finally poorly paid people  make poor workers.  If they eat gruel, wear Goodwill,  and live in rat infested slums. They won't be reliable trustworthy or creative.  
 

This is absolute bullE36 M3. This is insulting to the vast majority of people who have worked their way up through life. I have employed and worked with hundreds of hard working, creative, trustworthy, low paid workers. I was one of them. I married one of them. Every single member of my family was one of them at some point. I ran restaurants where I employed low wage workers that were much better employees than many I know that make six figures now. We weren't low paid because we were bad workers. We were low paid because that was all that our skills were worth. And we knew that, so we acquired more valuable skills, our our skills to better use, or did more challenging work that was in greater demand. 
 

And if someone chooses low wage work or is only qualified for low wage work, who says the difference needs to be made up by the taxpayer!?! Certainly not me, let people make and live with their own choices. I see working your way up from the bottom rung of the work ladder as not much different from working through years of college to earn a valuable degree. Would you expect tax payers to subsidize an entry level worker to equal a college graduate? I'm guessing not, so why should they be subsidized to equal a more experienced and skilled worker? 

 

Somebody choose low wage work?   Are you honestly thinking that he got a lot of better offers and choose to work for $7/hr?  
1.       I pointed out two truths.  1 some very wealthy people evade taxes forcing you to make up for their shortage.  
2.      That compared to most of the rest of the industrial world America's tax rate is at near the bottom.  
     Did you know that in France if you are sick the doctor/nurse go to see you!  You don't wait in some germ infected waiting room until they can squeeze you in. 
     That in Germany if you are on welfare you are assigned a case worker who's first job is to get you off welfare but only once you can support you and your family!!   It costs more but the average stay is months/weeks. In the meantime you have a clean home complete kitchen, washer/dryer, furniture. Access to transportation. 
       Look around the world. Cheap rarely gets you good.  Americans have a world class military and a third world public system. 
     

In reply to Opti :

Im not sure he saying "its not that way" I think he's saying "it shouldn't  be that way"

Hopefully he will clarify

Correct. And that report is completely misleading. One, McDonald's and Walmart are two of the largest employers, period. So of course they are two of the largest employers of low wage workers. Two, one could take the same data, and say that McDonald's and Walmart are helping support those that would otherwise rely completely on government assistance. Maybe they should get a "thank you?" 

In reply to frenchyd :

Somebody choose low wage work?   Are you honestly thinking that he got a lot of better offers and choose to work for $7/hr?

Yes. That is usually how it works. I never forced any of my employees to work, nor was I forced. Some people go for the best job they can get. If that job pays $7, then they are only worth $7. Or they took that job as a compromise- they are a college student, and the $7 job works around their schedule. Or, they have skills, but chose the easier, lower paying job. Lots of reasons for this, from better jobs do drug testing to just plain old preference. It's their lives, why should you care more than they do? I had some great people work for me for low wages 99% moved on and up. 
 

1.       I pointed out two truths.  1 some very wealthy people evade taxes forcing you to make up for their shortage.  
2.      That compared to most of the rest of the industrial world America's tax rate is at near the bottom.  
     Did you know that in France if you are sick the doctor/nurse go to see you!  You don't wait in some germ infected waiting room until they can squeeze you in. 
     That in Germany if you are on welfare you are assigned a case worker who's first job is to get you off welfare but only once you can support you and your family!!   It costs more but the average stay is months/weeks. In the meantime you have a clean home complete kitchen, washer/dryer, furniture. Access to transportation. 
       Look around the world. Cheap rarely gets you good.  Americans have a world class military and a third world public system. 

Neither of your truths are true. Tax evasion has a definition, and it's not what you think it is. I know today, people like to redefine words to suit their needs, but you don't get to do that here. Tax evasion is illegal, and a wealthy person is much, much more likely to get caught and prosecuted. You are talking about tax deductions, which are legal. Tax deductions aren't loopholes, they are purposely included in the tax code to drive behavior. They are actually a form of legalized extortion. If you do this, we will confiscate less of your money. But if you are a patriot looking to make sure Uncle Sam gets his share, maybe check with those in the "working class" that do their working under the table. 

Why do would you want to be a top taxed country? Sometimes it's not good to be at the top. We aren't in the top 10 countries with Ebola cases either. Maybe you should have looked into why they are higher than the U.S. instead of just assuming is was because they screw the rich. Hint hint- much of the difference is made up by higher taxes on their "working class." Remember how the bottom 50% in the US don't pay taxes? How would the U.S. rank if we changed that to the European model and taxed another 30% or so of the population? Maybe be careful what you wish for? 
     

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

"Tax evasion is illegal, and a wealthy person is much, much more likely to get caught and prosecuted. "

This statement is not supported by data.  It's literally easier to audit the poor than the wealthy due to 1) the conplexity of their income stresms 2) their teams of lawyers specifically setup to avoid or make audits as painful as possible. 
 

https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits/amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/26/wealthy-tax-evasion/

https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor/amp

anyway. Can we get back to discussing real estate.  I do think I'll eventually own some multi families.   I believe demographically the US is close to breaking its love affair with owning a house.  Don't believe you need one to " build wealth"

Boost_Crazy said:

 

Why do would you want to be a top taxed country? Sometimes it's not good to be at the top. We aren't in the top 10 countries with Ebola cases either. Maybe you should have looked into why they are higher than the U.S. instead of just assuming is was because they screw the rich. Hint hint- much of the difference is made up by higher taxes on their "working class." Remember how the bottom 50% in the US don't pay taxes? How would the U.S. rank if we changed that to the European model and taxed another 30% or so of the population? Maybe be careful what you wish for? 
     

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/09/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-also-pay-a-lot-in-taxes.html
 
pretty easy to make the leap frenchy is making  

anyway the rub is that in the USA we equate happiness and health with owning things and having money more than we equate it with paid time off, health care and good education.  So as long as we want more stuff this is what we get. 
 

also might want to audit our defense contractors more.  I used to work for Raytheon. Back in the day I could show you acres of company cars for the execs and jr execs.    Each 3 series paid for by you and me. 
 

anyway can we get back to real estate. 

RX Reven' said:

We've pinched the middle class to the point where we now have a binary country (haves and have not's)...I feel like I barely made it into the haves group and then zoom, up and up I've gone over time to become a hated "Rich Fat Bastard".

That's not at all what I want...I wish for a big, happy, healthy middle class in our country.

I don't think I'm smart enough to know how to solve our problems but I do think I'm smart enough to recognize that the proposals we keep hearing are complete garbage.

They never do anything to resolve the root causes of our problems, they're just redistribution schemes which will only cause the most productive among us to check out.

I don't think there can be a solution that doesn't involve any form of redistribution, at least through tax policy, especially after all those years of the wealth being redistributed upward through businesses. It's only a very-slightly-positive-sum economy assuming normal growth.

If you're wishing for some solution that doesn't involve any redistribution, well there's a saying about wishes and if they were fishes...

Also the most highly-paid people aren't necessarily the most productive. Warren Buffet is not more productive than a hundred million of the world's poorest people, Jake Paul is not more productive than a school full of teachers, Mark Zuckerburg is not more productive than Linus Torvalds.

Opti said:

So youre saying that the artificial constraints the government has placed on the market has negatively affected it, and you think placing different artificial constraints wont also negatively effect it.

This sounds eerily similar to, that fire is burning really badly because of all the gasoline in it, maybe we can put it out with more gasoline.

When most things have a broken set of rules, most people figure out that the problem is the rules being broken rather than the rules existing. Racing series, firewall configurations, all kinds of things...

Some of you guys spend an awful lot of time and energy worrying about the fact that somewhere in this country, somebody is getting something they are not entitled to. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) 

Some of you guys spend an awful lot of time and energy worrying about the fact that somewhere in this country, somebody makes more money by putting in more effort than you. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Not really. I'm too busy working, taking care of dogs and working on my Miata.

GameboyRMH said:

RX Reven' said:

We've pinched the middle class to the point where we now have a binary country (haves and have not's)...I feel like I barely made it into the haves group and then zoom, up and up I've gone over time to become a hated "Rich Fat Bastard".

That's not at all what I want...I wish for a big, happy, healthy middle class in our country.

I don't think I'm smart enough to know how to solve our problems but I do think I'm smart enough to recognize that the proposals we keep hearing are complete garbage.

They never do anything to resolve the root causes of our problems, they're just redistribution schemes which will only cause the most productive among us to check out.

I don't think there can be a solution that doesn't involve any form of redistribution, at least through tax policy, especially after all those years of the wealth being redistributed upward through businesses. It's only a very-slightly-positive-sum economy assuming normal growth.

If you're wishing for some solution that doesn't involve any redistribution, well there's a saying about wishes and if they were fishes...

Also the most highly-paid people aren't necessarily the most productive. Warren Buffet is not more productive than a hundred million of the world's poorest people, Jake Paul is not more productive than a school full of teachers, Mark Zuckerburg is not more productive than Linus Torvalds.

Warren Buffet is very good at hiring other productive people to run his companies. He also knows how to pick productive companies and actually leave them alone to do what they do. He multiplies his efforts.

Mark Zuckerberg, not so much. He has just about ridden his Facebook horse, that the Winklevoss Twins claim was stolen, as far as it will go. His Virtual Reality isn't any better than what everybody else has. He is a one trick pony. 

Linus Torvalds never wanted to monitize his creation, yet he is still happy. 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) 

Some of you guys spend an awful lot of time and energy worrying about the fact that somewhere in this country, somebody makes more money by putting in more effort than you. 

I actually put in more effort when I used to work on cars than I do building litigation support databases. Guess which gig pays more? The laborer who works for a plumber friend of mine puts in more effort than anybody else I know. His job is to dig holes where the pipes go. Sometimes he uses a shovel. Sometimes he digs with his hands. Like my dogs do. He literally works like a dog. He doen't make enough to buy dog food for my pack. One guy where Mrs . Snowdoggie used to work draws a nice check and never makes the effort to even show up for work. Hid dad owns the company.

You could actually go insane trying to match paychecks to efforts in this country. 

Opti said:

You where the one that initially made the comparison between the laffer curve and a virtual engine dyno.

So it appears your saying you believe the laffer curve is correct, you have a problem with it's application. Your statement stinks of "what your saying is correct, but its not politically correct."

The reason the laffer curve exists is because at a certain point in time, it wasnt understood how you could raise tax rates and revenues didnt go up, or how lower tax rates led to higher revenues. It dates back much farther than Laffer. Its a simple explanation to a very complex system. The fact that a simple statement that there is a tax revenue maximizing rate and its not 100% may seem obvious now, it used to not be. John Quiggin said Laffer was correct, but his argument that the US was on the wrong side of it is incorrect, Id entertain that argument, but not liking a basic theory because its used to argue against you stinks of historically terrible arguments.

The Laffer curve, as commonly used, is like a terrible joke of a virtual dyno. One that has a basically correct equation at its core, but has had a couple more tacked on and is now widely misunderstood to be able to produce dyno graphs with just a few basic engine specs entered into it. It's not politically incorrect, just practically incorrect beyond its core observation, and can be misused by someone anywhere on the political spectrum even if it is far more popular with a certain part of it.

I don't dislike the basic theory specifically, but I dislike it almost every application of it because it's used almost exclusively for making incorrect predictions and arguments, usually with specific curves.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

But effort is far from the only thing that makes a worker valuable.

Effort is just the price of admission.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Somebody choose low wage work?   Are you honestly thinking that he got a lot of better offers and choose to work for $7/hr?

Yes. That is usually how it works. I never forced any of my employees to work, nor was I forced. Some people go for the best job they can get. If that job pays $7, then they are only worth $7. Or they took that job as a compromise- they are a college student, and the $7 job works around their schedule. Or, they have skills, but chose the easier, lower paying job. Lots of reasons for this, from better jobs do drug testing to just plain old preference. It's their lives, why should you care more than they do? I had some great people work for me for low wages 99% moved on and up. 
 

1.       I pointed out two truths.  1 some very wealthy people evade taxes forcing you to make up for their shortage.  
2.      That compared to most of the rest of the industrial world America's tax rate is at near the bottom.  
     Did you know that in France if you are sick the doctor/nurse go to see you!  You don't wait in some germ infected waiting room until they can squeeze you in. 
     That in Germany if you are on welfare you are assigned a case worker who's first job is to get you off welfare but only once you can support you and your family!!   It costs more but the average stay is months/weeks. In the meantime you have a clean home complete kitchen, washer/dryer, furniture. Access to transportation. 
       Look around the world. Cheap rarely gets you good.  Americans have a world class military and a third world public system. 

Neither of your truths are true. Tax evasion has a definition, and it's not what you think it is. I know today, people like to redefine words to suit their needs, but you don't get to do that here. Tax evasion is illegal, and a wealthy person is much, much more likely to get caught and prosecuted. You are talking about tax deductions, which are legal. Tax deductions aren't loopholes, they are purposely included in the tax code to drive behavior. They are actually a form of legalized extortion. If you do this, we will confiscate less of your money. But if you are a patriot looking to make sure Uncle Sam gets his share, maybe check with those in the "working class" that do their working under the table. 

Why do would you want to be a top taxed country? Sometimes it's not good to be at the top. We aren't in the top 10 countries with Ebola cases either. Maybe you should have looked into why they are higher than the U.S. instead of just assuming is was because they screw the rich. Hint hint- much of the difference is made up by higher taxes on their "working class." Remember how the bottom 50% in the US don't pay taxes? How would the U.S. rank if we changed that to the European model and taxed another 30% or so of the population? Maybe be careful what you wish for? 
     

We both see what we want to see.   Apparently completely different views.

 
I'll admit I'm in a very comfortable place right now but I've worked an average of 14 hours a day to get here.   Post high school education doesn't count as work.  I enjoy learning. 

  Yet I see horrible inequities in America that I don't believe should be here.  
  I'm not ever going to suggest that everybody should get the same.   It doesn't work that way anywhere. 
    Yet some places in America the politicians are so corrupt  and the nature of business is so cut throat that we might as well be a 3rd world country.  
       At least in wealthy area's of the country. Some effort is spent to minimize the effects of political corruption.  Not because they are morally superior but simply because they can afford to minimize it.  
    I just look around the world and see what works better. Then I investigate why.  It's almost never because one country is morally superior to others.  It has more to do with education and  a sense of duty. 
      Here in America we fool ourselves not thinking we have the best health care system yet any objective examination will show that is simply not true.  We do however have some of the wealthiest people and families in charge of the health care system.  
I think those two things are connected. Do you?  

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Boost_Crazy said:

 

Why do would you want to be a top taxed country? Sometimes it's not good to be at the top. We aren't in the top 10 countries with Ebola cases either. Maybe you should have looked into why they are higher than the U.S. instead of just assuming is was because they screw the rich. Hint hint- much of the difference is made up by higher taxes on their "working class." Remember how the bottom 50% in the US don't pay taxes? How would the U.S. rank if we changed that to the European model and taxed another 30% or so of the population? Maybe be careful what you wish for? 
     

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/09/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-also-pay-a-lot-in-taxes.html
 
pretty easy to make the leap frenchy is making  

anyway the rub is that in the USA we equate happiness and health with owning things and having money more than we equate it with paid time off, health care and good education.  So as long as we want more stuff this is what we get. 
 

also might want to audit our defense contractors more.  I used to work for Raytheon. Back in the day I could show you acres of company cars for the execs and jr execs.    Each 3 series paid for by you and me. 
 

anyway can we get back to real estate. 
 

It is easy to make the leap if you ignore all of the data and confuse correlation with causation. But there is a reason you call it a leap. Because the bridge is missing. But since we are leaping, can I also leap and say that countries with colder climates are happier? Or countries that are more homogenous? Or most likely, countries that are happy are more tolerant of high taxes, and you have the cause and effect backwards.  Since France is this topic, did either of you look to see how well raising the taxed worked for France? 

Laffer curve in action...

French Supertax Failure

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/

As for happiness, we all get to chose our own work/happiness ratio. Our choices in life expand or contract the range of choices available, but nothing is set in stone. Wealth helps, but I've known many unhappy wealthy people and many happy poor people. An unhappy person is likely to be unhappy either way and vice versa. It's a good thing everyone has the opportunity to choose on their own. 

Duke said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

But effort is far from the only thing that makes a worker valuable.

Effort is just the price of admission.

 

With a 3.5% unemployment rate, the price of admission is relative.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

RX Reven' said:

We've pinched the middle class to the point where we now have a binary country (haves and have not's)...I feel like I barely made it into the haves group and then zoom, up and up I've gone over time to become a hated "Rich Fat Bastard".

That's not at all what I want...I wish for a big, happy, healthy middle class in our country.

I don't think I'm smart enough to know how to solve our problems but I do think I'm smart enough to recognize that the proposals we keep hearing are complete garbage.

They never do anything to resolve the root causes of our problems, they're just redistribution schemes which will only cause the most productive among us to check out.

I don't think there can be a solution that doesn't involve any form of redistribution, at least through tax policy, especially after all those years of the wealth being redistributed upward through businesses. It's only a very-slightly-positive-sum economy assuming normal growth.

If you're wishing for some solution that doesn't involve any redistribution, well there's a saying about wishes and if they were fishes...

Also the most highly-paid people aren't necessarily the most productive. Warren Buffet is not more productive than a hundred million of the world's poorest people, Jake Paul is not more productive than a school full of teachers, Mark Zuckerburg is not more productive than Linus Torvalds.

Our economic system is based on wealth redistribution when you break it down. You get a paycheck, and redistribute it to others. You give away your wealth in exchange for goods and services by others, making them wealthy. If someone becomes wealthy, it's because people found value in what they had to offer. What we find value in is not always logical, but it is the choice of the individual. A poor person buying a $100 pair of shoes that makes a rich basketball player richer is not logical, but it's their choice and it brings them happiness. If we really want change, it needs to be from the bottom up, not the top down. The person that spent $100 on shoes for instant happiness could invest that $100 for future happiness. A person spending hours watching their favorite YouTuber could invest that time in themselves expanding their education. The choices are already there.