bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SPONSORED LINKS

Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com

YOUR AD HERE

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

How will prices change in 2009 for Greater Boston?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How will prices change in 2009 for Greater Boston single family homes?
Down more than 10%
62%
 62%  [ 5 ]
Down 5 - 10%
25%
 25%  [ 2 ]
Down 0 - 5%
12%
 12%  [ 1 ]
Up 0 - 5%
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Up 5 - 10%
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Up more than 10%
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 8

Author Message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:11 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Overall Tax Rates Down 4.5%? Only For The Rich. Reply with quote

Occamboy wrote:

Today, because of dramatic reductions in top marginal tax rates and in capital gains taxes, the wealthiest Americans pay 17% of income to the Feds, vs 33% or so for a median American.


I think you must be conflating capital gains with income. They aren't the same for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they should be taxed the same, but I do have a one big problem with that - capital "gains" may only be gains in nominal terms. At least part of your gain will be due to government created inflation, and high capital gains rate coupled with high inflation would let the government effectively confiscate assets. I'd have no problem with much higher capital gains rates if inflation were subtracted from the gain first. This would put them on the same footing as income taxes, which aren't affected by inflation (in the first order approximation).

Occamboy wrote:

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush simply stuffed cash into the coffers of the rich, grabbing it from the middle class.


I don't know about that. The wealthy pay the bulk of the income tax in the US. This isn't a zero sum game. A 91% tax rate sounds downright oppressive and lowering it could very well have increased overall tax revenue as it would have increased the incentive to work more. Perhaps it was lowered too far - I don't know. What I am saying is that if the rate is too high, lowering it can make everybody involved better off and without any "grabbing" involved. This isn't to say that lowering taxes will always have this effect. It could certainly go too far (and maybe it has).

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:02 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference


I was a Democrat until Deval Patrick. I guess I matured in my research and critical thinking and realized that everything he said was not geared into reality and reality would determine our future not his flowery puff talk. He said he would give us lower property taxes; Muffy asked him how that was going to be possible. Muffy was a realist, Patrick was a hopeful inexperienced dreamer not burdened by reality. People who seem to be unflappable and cool with leadership temperament often do not burdened themselves with reality, so naturally they are not stressed, they avoid reality and are in Disneyland in their minds. Muffy was right, Patrick was wrong, Patrick is going to cut Local Aid which means property taxes are going to go up. It's just plain observation. It actually makes me mad that people don't look at reality and continue to buy the flowery talk. People's ignorance hurt me because dumb people caused the housing bubble; they allowed themselves to be weak prey and their stupidity, their irrationality made my reality worse.

If you want to talk about WWII as a benchmark start point, I'd question your control measure. A World War is an anomaly wouldn't you think. Prior to that we had a Great Depression: Hell, our modern history is so friggin turbulent with Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, etc. what period represents "Historical Norms". Nonetheless, this is the reality we're in so let's start with Eisenhower. Instead of having disdain for the rich, something the Democrats have impressed on us for decades, why not be thankful that the wealthy are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes. In other countries, the wealthy don't pay nearly as much as in the United States. Look at all the countries that trash the U.S. like its sport. They are lazy, unproductive limp dicks. We provide the blanket of security so they don't have to build and pay for a respectable military which gives them more capacity to give their people socialistic benefits. Get that, we are expected to subsidize other nation's security, they get the cost benefit and they actually tax their citizens MORE than we get taxed here. We have people on the Left that want us to do Nation Building in Afghanistan. They want us to build schools in Afghanistan, build their infrastructure and buy them off so that they don't harbor terrorists and like us. How absurd is that? How lopsided are the expectations that even though the top 25% of earners pay 85% of our cost of government, that that same minority has to now pay off other nations so that they don't harbor terrorists? The rest of the nations are delusional to think that we are expected to defend them and pay for benefits and relief for the entire world. We are successful because we work harder than them, they don't want to feel guilty and lazy so they invent bullshit to validate their delusions. Take any issue and ask yourself, why do all the other nations expect the United States to be the first to help? The rest of the World is mad at us because of George W. Bush, please. We invaded Iraq and took out a brutal dictator that tortured and led genocide on his own people, invaded his neighbors and paid terrorists rewards for targeting United States citizens. Isn't that the entire organizing principle for the United Nations, to have nations collectively quell radicals like Hussein? How many UN Resolutions did he just laugh at and stick the middle finger up at us? Don't you think after 9/11 and seeing people cheering in the streets, cheering that innocent Americans were slaughtered, do we have to give a fucking shit what those people think of us? If people don't like us for the wrong reasons it is their fault, and we didn't need to hire a fuzzy happy "hopeful" bullshitter to soft soap the world that has unrealistic expectations for us. They will not like Obama shortly. Obama will dilute the US Dollar with his spending and that will be the face of the ugly American, diluting the US dollar to dilute the debt we owe everyone. He will do it because he is a populist and he promised the same 12 pack of beer to thousands of people. He offered unrealistic expectations and we were so dumb that we believed it was possible.

Prior to World War II my friend, we didn't have a middle class. Back in the day, the Democratic Party was run by hard nosed people that just wanted an opportunity, a chance. They had the work ethic and the industrious values and they wanted to be in the United States because it was a chance at a free capitalistic market run by a government of the people. Well, if all you need is a chance, we've been giving people chances now for decades. People have gotten soft, they have stopped trying to work hard, they have diluted their industrious values, and the Democratic Party has validated their laziness and sense of entitlement. Old School Democrats just needed once chance and they made it. We have neighborhoods in Massachusetts that will never get their acts together because the people are polluted, we have exhausted the whole academic b.s. reasons to blame society for their problems and allow them to play the victim. Allowing themselves to play the victim is enabling their bad values that are giving them bad results and poor quality of life.

Now, hard working people that are killing themselves to work hard and move forward are continually being pulled down and crash to the ground because we have to continue to bail out and bail out able bodies that just don't want to work hard, they want to spend more than they can afford and they want to be bailed out and there are so friggin many of these deadbeats that they have political power and can vote in a populist that will promise them more and more handouts. It is the tyranny of the deadbeats. Hard working private sector people who have good track records are being laid off right now and the State can't even tell us the growth of full time equivalents in the public sector. We're hiring more chair warmers in government, paying their benefits and pensions and the coalition of deadbeats and government hacks have grown so much that they are pulling us down with an incredible amount of dead weight. We can not be a superior power carrying this dead wood in our own nation, and how on earth will we be able to pay for the rest of the world's problems as we're expected to do by other countries?

When Obama gives his speech, think about MLK; think about how MLK asked us not to judge a man by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Obama had virtually the same voting record as Clinton, yet 90 plus percent of Blacks voted for Obama. The content of their character were virtually the same, they had the same voting record. How can anyone explain 90 plus percent of Blacks voting for Obama other than the fact that they voted based on the color of his skin. Blacks as a strong segment of the Democratic Party (typically voting 85% plus Democrat) absolutely tipped the scales in the Primary for Obama. Oh, and what was the subtext for not voting for Hillary, she was a bitch right? Well if she was a bitch and he was more "likeable", why did he choose a bitch to be the Secretary of State? Oh, didn't he tell us not to vote for Hillary because she didn't have the "Judgment" because she voted for the War? Well why did he put in a Secretary of State that has bad judgment? Biden voted for the War, does he have bad judgment? Biden said Obama was grossly under qualified to be President and was asked if he stood by those remarks in a debate and he confirmed again that Obama was not qualified to be President. Does Biden have poor judgment? The man who said Obama wasn't qualified is the VP? How do Democrats resolve this craziness in their minds? They are a delusional twisted group to hide all these inconsistencies.

I love Obama's letter to his girls. The poetry brings a tear to your eye. The reality of his actual actions speaks like this: In order for me to be in this position, I needed to self promote like no other. I needed to play pay to play; get along-go along politics in one of the most corrupt governments in the Nation. I needed to take money from corrupt slum lords that stole money that taxpayers gave to poor people. I used the money in my self promotion book along with this slum lord's convicted felon's money to buy the home you live in, I knew our Governor was corrupt but never had the political courage to stand up and fight the good fight. In fact, I have never stood up for anyone else but myself ever. I did not improve the quality of life for anyone in the South Side of Chicago other than myself and the aforementioned slumlord and maybe a handful of other people on the government dole. I voted for my Party 97 percent of the time even though I preach about one "United States of America" not being red or blue. Speaking of preachers, I had you christened by a hate monger who has disdain for our great country. I lied about not knowing his predispositions and promised not to disown him as I would my own grandmother, a grandmother that says I was born in Kenya and as I said was racist. I started my political career in the living room of domestic terrorists. I got elected to end the War but voted to fund Billions of Dollars to the War until I saw the political opportunity of running with the Antiwar coalition with Blacks and despite saying myself that I was unqualified, I saw the, what was it, the something or other about right now, I needed to catch this political opportunity. So sweethearts, I will tell the country that we need to "INVEST" in all these wonderful things. Invest is code for borrow and may you pay the tab. Invest means put more money on the country's credit card bill. Prior politicians tried to rally the support of responsible hard working Americans. I saw the disenfranchised, the deadbeats and saw how friggin many they are and realized that if I could offer them more handouts, they'd bring me in a victory. I didn't ask Americans like JFK did to ask not what their country could do for them, as what they could do for their country; I asked the deadbeats, what can government give you? What bailout can our country give you? That's how I got elected. So when this moronic population finally gets that it is government overspending that is causing our financial ruin and all these failed handout programs like rent control, or the Community Reinvestment Act, government subsidies that disrupt affordability and make things cost more and more in the long haul, it will be too late, we will have massively expanded government instead of massively cutting government. We will ruin a decade of our population's potential by burring them in debt the likes this world has never seen. We will have to either start a War to get out of it or go bankrupt. At this time all the deadbeats will realize that they were better off and might actually realize that the people who they had disdain for were actually behind the scenes doing all the work and paying all the bills and they just bit the hand that feed them.

Obama's campaign was delusional. It was not geared into reality. He is going to try to lower expectations by saying that we can't get you all the nice things I promised you right away; may not even happen in my first term, wink, wink. My position is that Deval Patrick or Barack Obama should have never made those promises in the first place. It shows that they had no foresight to the magnitude of the problems we were in, so even if they were well intended, they shot their mouths off without the support of reality. I'm asking everyone to not listen to the flowery words, but to look at reality and then take measure of the amount of delusional people who do believe in the flowery words and how the misguided masses can deform the markets. There is a great scene in the movie "Step Brothers" where Will Farrell and John Reilly are sleep walking and bumping into things and the parents tell each other not to wake them. Well I see these Obama Messiah cult people like sleep walkers who are bumbling around. I just want to say "Tony Rezko" to wake them up, but they are happily comfortable in their delusional bubble.

People think Bush was an idiot. If you think this, think about what it would be like to live in Israel. Imagine having crazies shooting rockets into your country. These people are out of their fucking minds and Bush was geared into that harsh reality. They are an ocean away and no rockets are hitting our cities so everything is peachy. I say to all the nations that applauded Obama's election, how happy will Africa be when we stop sending money there because we've bankrupted our nation will trillions of bailouts that have financially buried our Nation. Bush didn't stop sending checks over to Africa. They just took our money and continued to piss and moan. Wake up for just a moment and do the math.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two other points:

Muffy asked Deval Patrick in a debate: "Deval, what percentage of our Budget goes to Local Aid?"

Patrick- "I don't know".

How could Patrick promise to lower property taxes, the only vehicle for the State to do so was by cutting State Government, having State Government pick up more of Local Servives or increasing Local Aid. HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET WAS FOR STATE AID?

Second:

Barack Obama got the second most amount of political payola from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His lofty rhetoric states that it is corporate lobbyist paying off politicans who turn a blind eye to an issue that is crippling our nation. Well wasn't it the subprime problem that brought us to our knees. Barack Obama was front and center, number two as a junior senator in his first term getting the second most amount of money from a corrupt organization that is a major part of this economic catastrophe. Don't forget that Obama actually sued a bank for not issuing enough subprime mortgages. Obama was part of the problem not part of the solution.

Bonus point:

Deval Patrick sat on the Board of Ameriquest, a predatory mortgage lender that targetted the poor and minorities.

When the poor and minorities start to get the education they deserve, they might see how Patrick was a Judas to his people and got bought off to be the token public facing minority for an organization that hurt the Black community. If Patrick cared about the poor and the Black community, why did he take money from Ameriquest, a group that was a predatory lender? Would my hero, MLK applaud that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Occamboy
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:14 am GMT    Post subject: Re: Overall Tax Rates Down 4.5%? Only For The Rich. Reply with quote

Quote:
I think you must be conflating capital gains with income. They aren't the same for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they should be taxed the same, but I do have a one big problem with that - capital "gains" may only be gains in nominal terms. At least part of your gain will be due to government created inflation, and high capital gains rate coupled with high inflation would let the government effectively confiscate assets. I'd have no problem with much higher capital gains rates if inflation were subtracted from the gain first. This would put them on the same footing as income taxes, which aren't affected by inflation (in the first order approximation).


You make a good point about inflation creep. But, in the end, it's a small point in the entire fairness discussion - the rich used to pay three times higher taxes than they do now. The middle class now pays three times more than it used to. The middle class pays taxes at twice the rate that the rich do. BTW, Warren Buffet absolutely agrees with this last point:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/

Quote:
I don't know about that. The wealthy pay the bulk of the income tax in the US.


This is only true if we count Social Security payments as payments into a lockbox from which the same individual takes money after retirement. But Social Security income is treated by the Feds the same as any other revenue: it is functionally little different than federal taxes with a pretty name. Counting Social Security as a tax changes the picture dramatically.

Quote:
A 91% tax rate sounds downright oppressive and lowering it could very well have increased overall tax revenue as it would have increased the incentive to work more.


As you know, the rich get very little in earned income. Most all of their booty is in capital gains. Even though the marginal tax rate was 91% on earned income under Eisenhower, the blended tax rate for the rich on all income was roughly 50%. And times were good, and the middle class flourished, so I guess it was OK.

Quote:
Perhaps it was lowered too far - I don't know. What I am saying is that if the rate is too high, lowering it can make everybody involved better off and without any "grabbing" involved. This isn't to say that lowering taxes will always have this effect. It could certainly go too far (and maybe it has).


It depends on what's provided in return for taxes. There are many things that government can do much better and cheaper than can the private sector - roads, military, health care, etc. Sure, the government screws things up - but not nearly as badly as the private sector can, for example, see the banking mess we currently have. I pay a lot in taxes - I earn a good living - but I'm fine with paying those taxes in return for services of good value.
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:16 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You make a good point about inflation creep. But, in the end, it's a small point in the entire fairness discussion


Fairness? Fair share? How about the bottom half of wager earners only paying 3% of the cost of government. The wealthy back in the Eisenhower days most likely were the same that bought the World War II Bonds that saved the World from Adolf Hitler. These wealthy helped build the middle class. Isn't it fair for the middle class to step up and pay their fair share? In your mind, is it "fair" that the poor were given the opportunity to become Middle Class and they should continue to never pay their fair share in the cost of government? Doesn't "fairness" include personal responsibility? Don't people feel like deadbeats for not paying taxes when they use government services? In reality, why shouldn't government base taxes on what percentage of the services an individual uses? Fairness? It's like a open bar for some and others have to pay the tab for the freeloaders. Fairness, we have to bail out the deadbeats that took out risky mortgages, mortgages that were rammed down the throat of our society by a socialistic policy of the Community Reinvestment Act's 1995 Amendments that allowed the securitization of subprime mortgages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:38 am GMT    Post subject: Re: Overall Tax Rates Down 4.5%? Only For The Rich. Reply with quote

Occamboy wrote:

As you know, the rich get very little in earned income. Most all of their booty is in capital gains.


Are they rich because they make their money through capital gains or do they make their money through capital gains because it is the most efficient tax-wise? You can't help but encourage something with the tax code. Having a tax code that favors the building of businesses seems like a pretty good option to me. At the very least it creates jobs and encourages technological progress. My point is, the people who are rich will be those who know how to play to the tax code, and a tax code that encourages business is preferable to one that encourages deadbeats (to borrow a phrase from John P).

Occamboy wrote:

There are many things that government can do much better and cheaper than can the private sector - roads, military, health care, etc. Sure, the government screws things up - but not nearly as badly as the private sector can, for example, see the banking mess we currently have.


On what are you basing your claim that the government can provide health care better than the private sector? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing - I'm just asking.

As for the current banking mess, some would argue (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree) that it was caused precisely because of too much government interference in the market, ala Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:07 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Overall Tax Rates Down 4.5%? Only For The Rich. Reply with quote

Quote:
My point is, the people who are rich will be those who know how to play to the tax code, and a tax code that encourages business is preferable to one that encourages deadbeats (to borrow a phrase from John P).


Fairest thing would be to tax all income equally - otherwise, as you say, the rich will find ways to purchase loopholes (e.g., by turning all income into capital gains). Income is income is income. When the rich paid 50% of their income in federal taxes (under Eisenhower), plenty of businesses started, and the middle class prospered as did the rich.

Quote:
On what are you basing your claim that the government can provide health care better than the private sector? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing - I'm just asking.


The US has the most expensive health care in the world by far, (30% higher per capita than #2 Canada). The US has the worst (or perhaps second-worst) medical outcomes in the developed world. The US is the only important first world country to not have universal single-payer health care. Those three facts are probably related.

What's interesting is that once American hit 65 - when they start receiving universal single-payer health care, A.K.A. Medicare - the medical outcomes become standard for the developed world.

And Medicare is far less expensive than private insurance for the same care. Medicare spends less than 5% on things other than paying medical bills, vs > 20% for private insurers. Providers squeal because Medicare usually pays less per procedure than do the private insurers, but Medicare can pay less for the same reason that WalMart can - they are the biggest insurer by far. But docs in the US still get paid far more by Medicare than do their counterparts around the world.

As it happens I make my living as part of the medico-industrial complex, and have experience with health care in Europe. I'm always amazed at what Americans put up with on this front. European health care is absolutely superb at 33%-50% lower cost (per capita) than our own.

Quote:
As for the current banking mess, some would argue (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree) that it was caused precisely because of too much government interference in the market, ala Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things.


I don't want to defend Fannie and Freddy - and I've exchanged emails with my Rep (Barney Frank) blasting him for his unhelpful support of them. However... it must be said that Fanny and Freddy were the *last* to go feed at the absurd-mortgage trough. IIRC, they were pressured to do by investors because their competitors were doing very well in that bubble.
Back to top
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:50 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: Overall Tax Rates Down 4.5%? Only For The Rich. Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:

Fairest thing would be to tax all income equally - otherwise, as you say, the rich will find ways to purchase loopholes (e.g., by turning all income into capital gains). Income is income is income.


I don't think that I agree with the assertion that capital gains is income. While it can be, it isn't always. Sometimes inflation is the major component. The Dow has only historically returned a piddling 1.9% after inflation is accounted for. If you want to tax the real component as income that's fine by me.

However, I think your numbers leave out some pretty significant things that would substantially alter the comparison for what is "fair" and who is paying more as a percentage. First of all, you should include the various taxes that the owned companies pay in the total of taxes paid by the rich owners. The owners are essentially paying the corporate tax, etc. in addition to capital gains.

Secondly, and to bring this somewhat back to real estate, you should include the capital gains that the middle class get and don't pay taxes on when calculating their income. Specifically, the first half million in capital gains that a married couple gets when selling a primary residence can be untaxed. That would be negligible for your numbers for the rich but could substantially change them for the middle class.

...

Thanks for your explanation of your views on health care.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't want to defend Fannie and Freddy - and I've exchanged emails with my Rep (Barney Frank) blasting him for his unhelpful support of them. However... it must be said that Fanny and Freddy were the *last* to go feed at the absurd-mortgage trough. IIRC, they were pressured to do by investors because their competitors were doing very well in that bubble.


They were the only ones considered too big fail and subsequently bailed out, I believe. Being late to the party doesn't mean they weren't dominant when they arrived.

That was just one example, too. I think that The Fed itself has a great deal of responsibility for the bubble. There are also myriad government subsidies to the real estate industry and incentives herding people that direction. In this respect, I definitely think that there was and still is too much government involvement.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on this point, though. Just because the government is over-involved in some aspects doesn't mean that they can't be under-involved in others. More regulation may be justified.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:50 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDEND TAX CUTS: DATA MAKE CLEAR THAT HIGH-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BENEFIT THE MOST
by Joel Friedman and Katharine Richards

http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm

I think the context of this discussion has to recognize that the babyboomers have their nest eggs in stocks. Growth stocks are typically bought for stock price appreciation (capital gains). Income stocks are bought for a steady stream of income (dividends) and a bit of appreciation. Income stocks are sometimes safe havens and appreciate as a crowded sanctuary/port in a storm.

When you look at affordability and people trade with their monthly earnings, you have to keep in mid that we have nest eggs of a babyboom in play in the market. This affected the housing market because babyboom money was buying second homes as investments. I buy that the surcharge of money from capital gains and dividends affected affordability in many asset classes.

The flip side, the reason why I wasn't complaining too much was because that surcharge of money was previously chasing internet stocks that has crazy P/E ratios and I'd rather see pension funds in Coca Cola than an internet stock that hadn't created a product or customer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talk about a Bubble, check out the explosion in government wages

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apes.html

If you check out this website you'll see that Massachusetts had wages grow 65% in the last decade. Haven't we lost population? This is the gift that keeps giving because there are plenty of chair warmers in this crowd that will get fat pensions.

When we came up with our pension formula we had significantly fewer government employees per thousand in the population and they made significantly less relative to the private sector.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:33 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The same time period (last 10 years) that Massachusett's wages grew 65%, the Federal Government grew 41%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:39 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, check out California, in the last decade, California's government wages increased 80 freaking percent. FED grows at 40%, Massachusetts grows at 65%, and California at 80%. Which ones have their hands out like bums? Is it fair for the other States that the irresponsible ones get bailed out? Shouldn't they cut and get rid of wasteful spending?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:54 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Their wages may have grown by 65% but I'm sure that they are more than 65% more efficient now!

Regarding earlier comments about the typical American, remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. As long as the majority of Americans are financially incompetent, the rest of us are forced to live with their consequences (assuming they vote of course). As a result, it seems that we will be spending tax payer money to provide extra healthcare and keep people in their houses for a few more months before foreclosure instead of making ourselves more competitive with the rest of the world. Somewhere along the way we forgot that the Chinese don't give us products for free - they want something in exchange for those goods! We don't seem to be interested in exporting anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:25 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I see these wage figures, I have to wonder if local inflation ratcheded up a lot of this.

Most public employees fall into grades for certain positions, from those grades they get step increases that max. out. Beyond that, wage earners get a lift for a cost of living adjustment based on inflation.

What I'm thinking is the impact the housing bubble has had on making everything else cost more. If the cost of housing jacks up inflation and inflation measures are used to jack up cost of living adjustments for public wage earners, the housing bubble made the cost of government increase.

When you think about inflation and taxes, think about how a tax increase can give raises to the public sector and is a pay decrease to the private sector. Lowering taxes is giving the private sector a raise.

Within the public sector we have politically connected jobs. These hacks need actual workers (paid a fraction of the hack) to do the work so we effectively have to pay about 2.5 times for the service. When the Republicans point to the hack's abuse of the public funds and public trust, the Democrats roll out the dedicated hard working underpaid public sector employee. The hacks hide behind these salt of the earth people. I'm not saying Republicans don't have thier host of hacks, the Mike Brown who ran FEMA was a hack.

Right now, the fight is about how to solve this financial crisis. If you see it as government overspending, overborrowing, greed and irresponsibility, you do not want to empower and reward and bail out the irresponsible and the greedy. This fight is about who siezes power and controls the future. Right now, Obama won and he is predisposed to bailing out deadbeats and using tax dollars to create more government hack jobs. The reason why the hacks are so strong politically is because they are not burdened with having to be resposible to produce anything. If you didn't have a deadline to produce work and you could sit around on your ass every day, you could make phone calls, go to golf tournaments, attend luncheons and seminars etc.

We're trying to put this fire out using gasoline. We're proposing using the same means that fueled this fire to extinguish it. It is crazy.

As far as the two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, you couldn't be more right. There is sort of this ying-yang to an American Democracy in the context of capitalism. The invisible part that really isn't written about formally and is essential is American Values. Democracy doesn't work unless a society has the right values. If the two wolves eat the sheep, Democracy doesn't work. Right now, the wolves are getting government jobs and the public sector care only about their salaries and their pensions and they are bleeding the private sector workers, who were bled by the old money rich investment class. If they tax the investment class and US Corporations more, they will invest more in foreign investments. The public sector and unions are in a bubble and they are bleeding the private sector workers who have to pay taxes and compete with other nations that don't have the burdens of regulations.

Here's how it's going to play out. Obama's going to ask China to uphold human rights, environmental standards, and intellectual property rights. He'll talk about the bribery and kick backs that are common over there, and China will say "Shut up Bitch, just pay your bill."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:11 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian C wrote:
samz wrote:
I still feel like parts of Boston are stuck in a state of stalemate/denial. I recently got a listing from ZipRealty for a house in Arlington (one of only 29 SFH on the market there). The asking price is $549K, but according to the "Estimated Value" page, comparable homes sold for $464K, Zillow estimates it at $469K and CyberHomes estimates it at $462. Who knows what the actual selling price will be, but it doesn't sound like they're going to go quietly into the post-bubble world.

(FYI, the MLS# is 70861184)
Also note that seller bought the house in 2003 for $475k. With realtor fees and eventual selling price, im sure it will be a break even transaction.


Interestingly enough, the house is already under agreement, presumably for close to asking since it's so quick. Note that $475k in 2003 is $550k in today's money due to inflation.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group