@AverageJoe1 saidSo they'll be ten existing homes added to rental market supply and ten existing families who were homeowners added to the demand portion of that market. The net economic effect remains ........................... zero.
You are correct, I did say buy 'rental' houses. I mean, He buys 10 'fixer uppers' from homeowners. That is all that I ever bought, thus my mindset to say rental houses. The idea is to Make Money, and that is a much more lucrative path. As you with your acumen must know, the investor/son is going to flip them. The money he collects meanwhile from rent??? That is what ...[text shortened]... deductions, et al, et al, on a 1040 is a cog in the wheel of tax breaks, an extremely general term.
Economics looks at the forest while you are fixated on the trees.
Depreciation is what I said, how the government treats it for tax purposes is another matter. The Trump tax cut of 2017 allowed most business assets to be expensed i.e. the full price to be deducted in the first year of use. This was one of the few things in that bill that made sense, but the results were a bit disappointing as business investment (using the term "investment" in the economic, not popular, sense) after an initial surge, did not remain at hoped for elevated levels. That is because economic investment is primarily determined by consumer spending, not supply side antics.
@AverageJoe1 saidOr CLEARLY not revulsed at ANYTHING barbaric Trump does. Which just goes to prove you are just as much a sociopath as Trump because only another sociopath can love another sociopath.
nothingyousayrevuslesme
You can see that in how Trump PUBLICALLY professes a love of another sociopath Kim Jon Un or another sociopath Putin or Orban, ALL certifiable sociopaths.
So it takes one to know one.
@no1marauder said'So they'll be ten existing homes added to rental market supply and ten existing families who were homeowners added to the demand portion of that market. The net economic effect remains ........................... zero.''
So they'll be ten existing homes added to rental market supply and ten existing families who were homeowners added to the demand portion of that market. The net economic effect remains ........................... zero.
Economics looks at the forest while you are fixated on the trees.
Depreciation is what I said, how the government treats it for tax purposes is anoth ...[text shortened]... is because economic investment is primarily determined by consumer spending, not supply side antics.
So, we acknowledge that Spruce's son will go on to success, and provide housing. Everybody happy. My post is in the annals of history.
But here you suggest, what about the people that owned these homes.....did they fall on bad times, who knows, but they were in life unfortunate situation and likely would not be new homeowners, considering their having to NOT have a home at this time?? So, can we think maybe buy another home, maybe not?
However In my scenario, it is a given that Spruce's son would be successful and rent homes to people who need rental homes. And, he did it with utitlziing and applying govt tax breaks.
After his son gets rich, Sonhouse could chime in on how that is not fair, that we are not equal in the eyes of the constitution!!!
If Jannik won wimbledon trophy, i think that we all should win one.
@AverageJoe1 saidI don't care if you buy 10 homes, but you haven't done anyone any favors. The houses are there for rent or ownership regardless of what you do. 😆
Quite a misstatement. Fuel for te Sonhouse Fire! Tax breaks are available to everyone, equal treatment under the law.
Let's say I work hard while your son goes surfing everyday. He has all he needs to live on and is very happy in his environment. Entitlements, who needs money. Yesterday you said in another post that just managing a life is fine.
So I hav ...[text shortened]... his by sonhouse and see if he agrees. Not by Sue, tho, she does not like analogies. I can see why.
I'm not giving you a tax break to own them, though. Does a family that buys the home and lives there get a tax break? No, so fuuk off.
In fact, the New Administration is going to change the property tax law so that it increases EXPONENTIALLY with the number of residential properties you own:
1.....1x
2.....1x
3.....2x highest taxed property
4.....4x htp
5.....8x etc.
6.....16x
7......32x
8......64x
9......128x
10.....256x
So buy all the houses you want - I could care less. Just be ready to pay a whopping tax bill! 😆
@spruce112358 saidWhat you care about is not really an issue, with all due respects. Y'all say that a lot.
I don't care if you buy 10 homes, but you haven't done anyone any favors. The houses are there for rent or ownership regardless of what you do. 😆
I'm not giving you a tax break to own them, though. Does a family that buys the home and lives there get a tax break? No, so fuuk off.
In fact, the New Administration is going to change the property tax law so that it inc ...[text shortened]...
So buy all the houses you want - I could care less. Just be ready to pay a whopping tax bill! 😆
Yuu can't say there is a not a tax break for a family, they deduct their prop taxes and mtg interest and improvements, etc etc. Don't get you there. The depreciation etc that Marauder rightly points out are business expenses, a total 'nthter ball of wax.
@sonhouse saidAy, well London is indeed a multi - cultural city, which for me is a part of its' charm. Mind you, London has its' share of problems....It's the centre of banking, commerce and so on for the UK, of course, and creates most of the country's wealth now that industry in Britain has been throw to the four winds; wages are high but so is the cost of living. People need to be there because that's where the jobs are, but even high wage - earners struggle to get by, it's a different kind of poverty trap.
I do remember my one trip to London, I was there just wandering around after a layover flying through to Ireland for a job interview with Intel in Lexlip Ireland, but in London I remember looking down the street and totally amazed at what looked like looking at an Egyptian village, like an entire country had moved into that part of London.
I consider myself a citizen of pla ...[text shortened]... rbaric actions like the new secret police of Trump, turning the US into a version of Russia or Iran.
As you know I live in Indonesia, in a small fishing village, where the people live from day to day, and own nothing apart from a few plastic chairs and maybe a canoe. They think that all English people are rich because they earn a lot, and everyone lives a life of luxury; we have to explain to them that it isn't as simple as that.
Getting back briefly to Brexit, (and after this I promise I'll shut up about it) , part of the sell was that we'd be free of 'Johnny Foreigner' across the channel, who was responsible for all of Britain's woes; we would regain our 'sovereignty' and sail off into a brave new world of free trade, freed from the shackles of the EU, and the National Health Service would blossom. Turns out we needed Johnny Foreigner after all, and the NHS is completely f...cked, (excuse my French, as we say in England)
As to the dear old US of A, she certainly has her issues at present, but that's another story for another post, or we'll be here 'til Christmas...
4 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidOn my side, I might agree that all persons who have occurred have occurred, without further qualification or slanted framing.
Brrrr I cannot imagine typing the phrase ‘given to us’ wow, Spruce.
At least you are correct that all persons are created equal.
"Created" is an assertion I might not go along with.
As for "given to us": how is that different from "endowed with" from the opening of the USA's Declaration of Independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
@spruce112358 saidYou say socialism has nothing to do with state ownership.
@Rajk999
'Social ownership' is usually a feature of authoritarian nationalism, for example when a dictator orders seizure of key industries and turns them into state enterprises. Communism and authoritarianism are closely linked.
Paying taxes for schools and roads has been wrongly labeled 'socialism' since the 1870's when capitalists tried to make people hate 'soci ...[text shortened]... ing the name.
'Democratic socialist' is a way to try to claw the name back to its proper concept.
Please square that with Mamdami platform. A simple question, please no comment on whether you agree, or support him or not.
@AverageJoe1
Why don't you post a succinct definition of what you think Socialism IS, and we can all discuss that?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidState-owned stores mean socialism.
You say socialism has nothing to do with state ownership.
Please square that with Mamdami platform. A simple question, please no comment on whether you agree, or support him or not.
North Carolina has state-owned liquor stores.
Therefore North Carolina is a socialist state.
Hmmm ... this syllogism is not working! 😆
Mamdani has proposed city-owned grocery stores, but for what reason I'm not sure. Presumably not because he believes that groceries are "immoral" and so distribution should be controlled by the state! 😆
I'm guessing that the "free market" is failing to deliver groceries to certain neighborhoods of NYC at a reasonable price. If I lived in one of those neighborhoods, I would certainly find that annoying. I would want a solution to be found.
Government exists to protect all our rights equally, and our 'right to go on living' implies a right to seek out things to prolong our existence: air, water, food. If I have no air, I have a right to go seek some - no one would deny me that. If I was dying of thirst, I would seek out water. Same thing with food. People might want to say 'hey that's my water, or hey that's my food' - e.g. assert their property rights. This is where rights collide and we have to resolve that.
Generally, the right to property gives way before the right to go on living. In our society, governed by the rights we understand, you don't get to buy up or hoard the water and food and prevent others from seeking it out to prolong their lives.
I call this 'the lifeboat problem.' We are lost at sea in a lifeboat and one guy happens to be seated on the water keg. That doesn't make it 'his water.' We all get an equal share and hope for the best. 😆
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidLet s look at you last 3 paragraphs..
""Government exists to protect all our rights equally, and our 'right to go on living' implies a right to seek out things to prolong our existence: air, water, food. If I have no air, I have a right to go seek some - no one would deny me that. If I was dying of thirst, I would seek out water. Same thing with food. People might want to say 'hey that's my water, or hey that's my food' - e.g. assert their property rights. This is where rights collide and we have to resolve that.
Generally, the right to property gives way before the right to go on living. In our society, governed by the rights we understand, you don't get to buy up or hoard the water and food and prevent others from seeking it out to prolong their lives.
I call this 'the lifeboat problem.' We are lost at sea in a lifeboat and one guy happens to be seated on the water keg. That doesn't make it 'his water.' We all get an equal share and hope for the best. 😆""
My Three answers:
You say that as we look for food and water, we can assert 'property rights' on a person wno has property...is that what your point is? If we are all out looking for food, I might find a rabbit and 3 coconuts. I take them to my hut, feed me and my child. Sonhouse comes to the door. Does his property right extend to my having a duty to give him the rabbit? C'mon, Spruce. Maybe I looked longer and harder for the food that I have. You convince no one!
Your second paragraph about hoarding......I actually found 8 coconuts and put them aside for the next day, I. have had a sucessful day of hunting. But, you are saying, NO , AverageJoe, you cannot prevent Suzianne from coming and takiing those coconuts. Joe, she has a 'right' to those coconuts. She is also looking for someone to pay a debt that she has with Lundos, and needs some of the coconuts to pay him off!!! It is a societal thing, we all are dependents, you see.
Finally, the lifeboat problem. The dire circumstances are void of opportunity to 'act alone', if you will. In a society (on land with a million options to sleep or to work, whatever) everyone goes their own way....it's in the book!!! But the conditions of staring at each other in a lifeboat with no choices (my favorite word, BTW), everyone must pull together. Like,...... if we were all at the bottom of a caved-in mine and have to dig our way out. We would all be temporary socialists!!!!
For the record, if RAJK did not dig like the rest of us, we would give him no water.
@spruce112358 saidJust a curious observation:
State-owned stores mean socialism.
North Carolina has state-owned liquor stores.
Therefore North Carolina is a socialist state.
Hmmm ... this syllogism is not working! 😆
Mamdani has proposed city-owned grocery stores, but for what reason I'm not sure. Presumably not because he believes that groceries are "immoral" and so distribution should be controlled by the s ...[text shortened]... the water keg. That doesn't make it 'his water.' We all get an equal share and hope for the best. 😆
Good bad or indifferent, you suggest that a person has a right to the property, or effectively, the life of, another person.
If you gave these thoughts to a young person who has not been tainted by either liberal or conservative theory, just totally innocent with no formed opinion, do you think it would fly with them?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYou say it is "moral" to let Sonhouse starve because you foraged longer and better (and luckier!) than he did. And according to the morality of Nature "red of tooth and claw" that's true. Whatever animal forages better survives. We all know that is the Law of the Jungle.
Let s look at you last 3 paragraphs..
""Government exists to protect all our rights equally, and our 'right to go on living' implies a right to seek out things to prolong our existence: air, water, food. If I have no air, I have a right to go seek some - no one would deny me that. If I was dying of thirst, I would seek out water. Same thing with food. People might want t ...[text shortened]... alists!!!!
For the record, if RAJK did not dig like the rest of us, we would give him no water.
But The Law of the Jungle also says that it is fine if Sonhouse kills you and take your coconuts to feed his family. Nature says that if Sonhouse is stronger, he can take your coconuts, your house, AND your wife. You cannot have it both ways. If you accept the Law of Nature, then you don't have Civilization. [NB. Curiously, this is also the Trump and Israeli philosophies: might makes right. As @sh76 says, "Make us."]
The problem is, We The People have decided that Nature is wrong and Civilization is right.
We have abandoned Nature's dictates and we start with the obligation that Sonhouse has to protect YOUR rights, and you have to protect Sonhouse's rights. And that to protect all these rights equally throughout the entire society we will constitute a government (supported by a tax on coconuts) that will discharge these obligations.
So far so good - by now most of us agree to this, despite Trump's efforts. But now sonhouse is dying of lack of coconut milk. You have coconut milk because you bought up ALL the coconut groves around Tallulah Falls and have been shooting at anyone who tries to forage there.
And We The People are standing around watching sonhouse gasping on the ground, and you arguing, "He didn't forage hard enough! I have all the money! I bought the coconut groves legally!"
And we say, "Under Civilization, property rights give way to the right to life. Your property rights exist AS LONG AS no one is dying of hunger or thirst or exposure. We will not protect your property rights if that is happening around us." And then we force you to give Sonhouse enough coconut milk to keep him alive.
Because we are a Civilized Society. You may not like it, but it is what it is. 😆
@AverageJoe1 saidYoung animals/people are born with The Law of the Jungle in their heads and learn the Laws of Civilization. 😆
Just a curious observation:
Good bad or indifferent, you suggest that a person has a right to the property, or effectively, the life of, another person.
If you gave these thoughts to a young person who has not been tainted by either liberal or conservative theory, just totally innocent with no formed opinion, do you think it would fly with them?