From the Record:
Homebuilding revs up in NJ, led by multifamily construction
Home construction continues to heat up in New Jersey, especially in the multifamily sector, as builders obtained the largest number of monthly permits in April since the housing-boom days of 2005.
More than 3,700 building permits were issued last month. So far this year, 9,118 permits have been issued, up 12.3 percent from the first four months of 2014, according to the U.S. census.
This year’s increase in activity has been powered by the multifamily sector, as New Jersey’s long-term patterns of suburban, single-family development shift to a denser, more urban style. So far this year, multifamily permits have accounted for almost two-thirds of building permits issued in the state, as builders respond to a higher demand for rentals.
Patrick O’Keefe, an economist with the accounting firm CohnReznick, which has offices in New York and Roseland, expects single-family starts to remain flat, in part because young adults — the so-called millennial generation — often can’t qualify for mortgages because of tight lending standards and high levels of student-loan debt. In addition, he said, millennials “have experienced a housing market where prices went down, and have a more realistic assessment of housing as an asset.”
Hudson County has led the way in home-building starts through March, followed by Ocean County, where many homes destroyed by Superstorm Sandy are being replaced, according to an analysis by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Bergen County ranked third in the state. Taken together, Hudson, Bergen and Union counties accounted for 37 percent of the home-building permits issued through March.
“The concentration in the northeast quadrant of the state is striking,” O’Keefe said.
Jersey City continues to lead the state’s municipalities in homebuilding activity, as it did last year when it had 2,180 permits — more than the totals in most New Jersey counties. The city, along with the rest of Hudson County, is benefiting from spillover from New York City’s hot housing market.
FRIST!
The Small, Happy Life
MAY 29, 2015
By David Brooks
A few weeks ago, I asked readers to send in essays describing their purpose in life and how they found it. A few thousand submitted contributions, and many essays are online. I’ll write more about the lessons they shared in the weeks ahead, but one common theme surprised me.
Chris Koz Portland, OR.
“We are squandering the lived life in this country. I have to shake my head in dismay and ask what David Brooks is talking about if we remove the cliché & armchair Psychology?
Oprah Winfrey made billions off selling a similar pile of placating nonsense that, in the end, promotes suffering.
Here is a cliché that is fundamentally true ‘Life is Short’. Yet we spend the majority of it working not in the cultivation of “The Small, Happy Life” or the American dream that never really existed. Working hard to provide your children with a better future? Think again.
We spend our lives working to enrich those with already great wealth. The data is 100% clear on this and it cannot be refuted nor wished away by Horatio Alger, puritanical work ethic, or FauxNews. For those, like myself, where avocation and vocation meet, hurray! But, we are outliers whose experience does not generalize to society as a whole.
Happiness is not just a state of mind and there are things society can do to nurture happiness. Yet we keep swallowing hardship and adversity as if it is inherent in life; it is not. Isn’t it taxing being happy knowing so many Americans have arbitrarily reduced our time on Earth to struggle?
I’ll not thank a single soul for being alive during a time in which corporate power & Plutocracy has become more important than the individual has.
Our blissful purpose should be to rebel against those who tell us to be happy while they steal our safety, security, and freedom for themselves.”
[3] anon
The Anonunist Manifesto
I wonder how Anon will feel when he realizes that he has wasted so much of his energy promoting the demise of the American Dream that the he ends up among one of the few who does not reap the rewards of it?
Actually. I don’t wonder much about Anon at all. Though I do have sympathy for him and his pea brain.
“I’ll not thank a single soul for being alive during a time in which corporate power & Plutocracy has become more important than the individual has.”
And you have no qualms thanklessly reaching into others’ pockets whom you in your infinite wisdom deem corporate and plutocratic with reckless abandon for your own benefit.
My best year’s taxes, pro-rated for government spending, directly supported a small army of families. Forget a thank you. Didn’t even get a Christmas card. Not one.
There are countries free of corporate influence and plutocracy. I don’t see many people lining up to get in. I regularly hear about those trying to get out.
If anon wants to impress me, he should move to one of the plutocracy free zones. There’s a nice one just south of Miami.
From yesterday:
anon (the good one) says:
@BarackObama:
“Let us carry his legacy forward.”
—President Obama on President John F. Kennedy, born 98 years ago today
I particularly like the reference to the Nobel prize. Too bad your plutocratic ken doll didn’t make it to the turn of the century. He could have gotten the same ‘everyone gets a trophy’ award O did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Dems don’t care about the little guy: Column
http://usat.ly/1HS5PYz
I pay 6 figures in taxes. I didn’t get thank you card either. Bust my ass to help people that think the welfare money is free because it comes from the govt. Yup, it sure does and money grows on trees.
leftwing says:
May 30, 2015 at 1:10 pm
“I’ll not thank a single soul for being alive during a time in which corporate power & Plutocracy has become more important than the individual has.”
And you have no qualms thanklessly reaching into others’ pockets whom you in your infinite wisdom deem corporate and plutocratic with reckless abandon for your own benefit.
My best year’s taxes, pro-rated for government spending, directly supported a small army of families. Forget a thank you. Didn’t even get a Christmas card. Not one.
Last one from yesterday, punkin of course:
“I highlighted that one because it’s criminal for people working for an income to pay double the amount of someone who makes their money off their capital.”
You do understand, given your six figure taxes, that the capital has been taxed already? It is fair to tax it twice?
My Fed, State, and NYC taxes were 53% combined. After paying that I had a certain amount of ‘capital’ left over that generated earnings. Those earnings in your most favorable scenario above (LT Cap Gain) then get taxed again at 32% combined LTCG rate (includes 4% for the Great Leader O Care surcharge).
To get $100 of realized investment gains in the *most favorable* LTCG scenario I needed to earn $313 ($313 times [1-.53] times [1-.32].
Which, bottom line, is a whopping 68% tax rate. Or 78% at ordinary gains rates.
And what is wrong with making money off capital (brains) versus labor (back)?
Since before I could work legally I have been lowest rung in a bakery, fish market, janitorial service, highway department (know what its like to bury a deer that was roadside dead for three days in 80+ heat and humidity?), and innumerable restaurant kitchens. Cry me a river for the laborer.
Why capital gains are taxed at all is a mystery to me given the earnings were already taxed in the first place.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/921b06d016420130ff2c001dd8b71c47
Cute. Hope the shop owner moved out of DVDs before the end of the Bush era.
Argument still stands. Each scenario you show has the income going from one person to an entirely separate person. Difference is my capital gains stay with my person. You are taxing ME twice, unlike any other scenario in the cartoon.
But, bravo, nice show.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Crony capitalism only Boeing could love: Column
http://usat.ly/1HPkQKy
“Whenever the subject of increasing the capital gains tax from its current 15% rate comes up, you’ll invariably hear opponents breathlessly crying, “but that’s taxing the same income twice! Capital gains is double dipping!”
It’s a great line, and has proven powerful in debates. The only problem is, it’s 100% bullshit.
The capital gains tax is NOT a tax on income already taxed, it’s a tax on the ADDITIONAL income you earn by investing that income. For example:
You earn $100,000. Yay!
You are taxed 35% on it. Boo!
You invest the remaining $65,000, you do well, and you double it! Yay!
You now have $130,000 in the bank. You are taxed 15% for the capital gains, i.e., the $65,000 you made. You pay $9,750.
So again, to be clear, you are ONLY taxed on the additional money you made. There is no double dipping. It’s no different from getting taxed in one paycheck, and then getting taxed the next week, for a completely new paycheck. Except in this case, the second round of taxes comes at a 15% rate, which is pretty sweet, compared to the 35% you paid earlier.
So, to sum, you made a total of $165,000, and paid $44,750, for an overall rate of 27%.
Oh, and to all those still claiming this is double dipping, riddle me this: If it’s double dipping on the same income, how is it possible that the overall rate of taxation DROPS when you lump on the capital gains?
Look, there are all kinds of arguments for setting the capital gains tax at different levels. And there are all kinds of reasons to hate taxes. Nobody WANTS to pay them. But this argument being raised about double dipping? It’s a heaving pile of grade A bullshit.”
http://hlinkoreport.com/2012/12/09/no-the-capital-gains-tax-is-not-taxing-the-same-income-twice/
“Devil’s advocate argument for a moment, followed by why they are still idiots for their claim.
The “Double Dipping” argument comes from “Since dividends are corporate profits, which were taxed when the corporation made them, we shouldn’t have to pay taxes again when we get paid our dividends”
Of course, by that logic, since I paid taxes on my income when I got paid, when I hire a plumber, no more income taxes should be paid by him, since the money I give him has already been taxed.
What these people are failing to grasp is that the corporation they own part of is a separate and distinct legal entity from themselves. This is why when the corporation fails, they don’t have to take on the company debts. Just like me paying the plumber, the money is being paid from one entity to another, and therefore is new income. If they don’t like that set up, don’t form corporations. Privately own your business, pay everything made as personal income, and assume all liabilities while you are at it.
But that just might require showing some of that “personal responsibility” we hear the right crowing about all of the time.”
http://hlinkoreport.com/2012/12/09/no-the-capital-gains-tax-is-not-taxing-the-same-income-twice/
Ok, let’s shut down the income tax, replace it with a national sales tax on everything, plus a small tax on monetary transfers abroad. Incentivize savings and investment, the drivers of long term economic growth, while making tax payment easy and near-automatic.
Then neither income nor capital gain taxes need to be captured.
I thought you had to have a NJ pension to double dip?
I’ve never heard people say cap gains tax is double taxation… I have heard that about Corp taxes.
Dear L0rd, why do I even try?
McFly, dividends are NOT capital gains. They are income. Tax them. No disagreement there.
Capital gains are just that. Gains in value in something you already own and on which you have already have paid taxes. I own it. It went up in value. How is an increase in value of something I already own income to me?
Very different conceptually and from an accounting perspective.
At least freaking cut and paste something relevant, and if not relevant at least correct. You have an uncanny ability to find donkeys making arguments.
“Devil’s advocate argument for a moment, followed by why they are still idiots for their claim.
The “Double Dipping” argument comes from “Since dividends are corporate profits, which were taxed when the corporation made them, we shouldn’t have to pay taxes again when we get paid our dividends”
How exactly was that value created? It was transferred from one entity (buyer) to another (seller). So someone that flips a house, shouldn’t pay taxes? Or someone that flips a business shouldn’t pay taxes on new income created from the sale of that business?
“Capital gains are just that. Gains in value in something you already own and on which you have already have paid taxes. I own it. It went up in value. How is an increase in value of something I already own income to me?”
Re: ONJExPat (8, yesterday);
This one’s for you (us): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tbobaz8nn4
21. Exactly. A capital gain is not income. There is no offsetting expense. There is no payment for services. There is no service even rendered. It is an increase in value of an asset that one already owns.
Let’s talk income. Payment to a plumber for fixing your sink? Third party payment for current services rendered, income for plumber. Payment for moneys borrowed? Third party payment for current services rendered, income to lender. Payment to landlord for rent? Third party payment for current services rendered, income to landlord.
Let’s talk asset appreciation. Two guys buy two cars in 2005. Purchased for the same amount. Driven exactly the same way, same low mileage. Maintained exactly the same way, garaged in the winter. One guy bought a Porsche Turbo convertible, the other a Ford GT. The first guy’s car is valued the same as when he bought it. The second guy’s car is worth $200,000 more. Why does the second guy owe the government $60,000?
If he does, why wait for a sale? Why not mark everyone’s assets to value and tax them on it? The gains are there. That fat gold wedding band you have from ten years ago? It tripled in value. You owe the government $250 for having your wedding band for ten years. Pony up, motherf****er. Where you sending the check?
23
re: unrealized gain
He’s already partially justified higher and higher property taxes cause the town feels your house went up in value.
Dude has an $800 of income from his wedding band. I’m a citizen, part of that money belongs in the State coffers. Pay up. Now.
Great. Another day on which I awaken to find that Punkin has a raging stupid-on.
Where does the new value (60,000) come from? It’s income dude, one entity (buyer) was willing to pay more than the original entity (seller). This is where the 60,000 came from, so why should it not be taxed? Money is being transferred from one entity to another.
As for the wedding ring, why should I pay the tax if I didn’t sell the ring? There was no income generated if I do not sell it. So why should I be paying up?
“Let’s talk asset appreciation. Two guys buy two cars in 2005. Purchased for the same amount. Driven exactly the same way, same low mileage. Maintained exactly the same way, garaged in the winter. One guy bought a Porsche Turbo convertible, the other a Ford GT. The first guy’s car is valued the same as when he bought it. The second guy’s car is worth $200,000 more. Why does the second guy owe the government $60,000?
If he does, why wait for a sale? Why not mark everyone’s assets to value and tax them on it? The gains are there. That fat gold wedding band you have from ten years ago? It tripled in value. You owe the government $250 for having your wedding band for ten years. Pony up, motherf****er. Where you sending the check?”
You see, the income can only come about if money is transferred from one entity to another (this is the sales transaction). If the owner does not sell, there is no transfer of money from one entity to another. Therefore no tax, since no income was realized.
The tax discussions were cute. Redundant and trite but cute.
Mind boggling, conceptually, how gains on something I already own with tax free dollars are considered income.
Care to explain how that works with Roth IRAs?
If my car appreciates $200k and it is taxable income to me, how about when I sell it for less than what I paid? Didn’t know I got a deduction for the loss. Square that up for me?
Ditto my house. Fast Eddie may be able to shake a couple loose now since apparently capital losses are deductible?
And we could take a whole forum of detour on inflation v. gains and how certain gains are treated differently, eg. art, homes, and small business stock.
Conceptually, as a starting point, if I bought something with after tax dollars and it increases in value why should the government have a claim on that value of mine? It’s mine. Bought and paid for. Keep your stubby, grimy little fingers out of my pocket.
And, you have not refuted that to generate $100 of gain to me (after tax) I need to start with earnings of $313, for an effective tax rate of 68%.
Article about an IRS policy shift that is part of the stealth “nudging” going on to shift income in new and incremental ways but it has the potential to cause far more problems than it solves. Perhaps that was the intent.
http://www.aarp.org/money/investing/info-2015/pension-pain-eased-by-IRS.html?cmp=BAC-OUTBRAIN-MOB-MONEY-DSO_38920425_IRS+Moves+to+Ease+Pension+Pain
“Even though a typical American may have built up substantial equity in a home, he or she still may be in for an unwelcome surprise at retirement. That’s because home equity, rather than income-producing investments, represents the single largest contributor to net worth.”
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Equity 101: What’s your stake in your home worth?
http://usat.ly/1HDTvWi
31. Also, the taxing of employee options as ordinary income is a crock. They are granted at fair market value. At the very least any increase ought to be LT cap gains. Same dichotomy there as well. If the gains from grant to exercise are income, then if they expire worthless shouldn’t the decrease from FMV to zero be a loss?
IRS: Heads I win, tails you lose.
32. Ugh. Apples to oranges. Article specifically states and relies upon the leverage and paydown of the mortgage to create equity, and it ignores the initial equity contribution in its calculation.
If I took the same equity contribution I would have contributed at closing of the house, levered it anywhere from 3:1 to 20:1, dropped that amount into an index fund, and over time paid down the initial leverage to zero the result would be a retiree’s largest equity component.
Do you even think about the things you cut and paste? At all?
On millenials, Merrill Lynch just sent a report about them. I noticed this bit in the summary:
“US Millennials have less faith in people, religion, and government than Boomers, but are more trusting of the US military, more likely to share information (Millennials blog 3X more than Boomers), and remain optimistic about their futures. Though they are the most educatedgeneration in history (65% have some post-secondary schooling), US Millennials are falling behind their international peers, ranking near bottom on numeracy and literacy according to ETS.”
Throw inflation into the capital gains tax discussion, and you will find the government taxing a gain that is only nominal, not real.
I forgot, every subject you comment on you are a world renowned expert.
Comrade Nom Deplume, Future uber driver says:
May 31, 2015 at 8:21 am
The tax discussions were cute. Redundant and trite but cute.
[38] Joyce
Well, I don’t know about “world renowned” . . .
I’m enjoying his angst. Especially because he reminds me of Fabian
Would help if I included the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/barack-obama-shepard-fairey-hope-2008/?iid=ob_homepage_showcase_pool&iref=obnetwork
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
5 of today’s most powerful business dynasties
http://usat.ly/1HE0NJE
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Where world’s super-rich drive home prices soaring
http://usat.ly/1HXWUVj
Punkin, you do realize USA Today is aimed at the segment of the market that can’t read, right?
Whenever I travel, I love seeing the untouched pile of USA Todays in every hotel lobby.