From MarketWatch:
First-time buyers are skipping the starter home and saving for the big house in the suburbs
Forget the starter home. Today’s first-time buyers want a place they’ll live in for a long time — possibly even into retirement. And this ideal home is most likely in the suburbs.
That’s according to a new Bank of America poll of more than 1,000 adults 18 and older who would like to buy a home in the future. “Folks are waiting to buy their first home until later in life,” said Kathy Cummings, consumer education and consulting executive for Bank of America. And by that point, they’re probably better able to anticipate their future needs, which may be a home in which they can raise their families — places with ample square footage, backyards and sought-after school districts.
…
The report found 75% of first-time buyers would rather bypass a starter home, even if they’d have to save more to do it. And 35% said they’d want to retire in this home.Also, despite many reports about the lure of city life over recent years, especially among millennials, the report found that 52% of first-time home buyers want a home in the suburbs. Only 26% said they wanted to live in the city and 22% said they wanted to live in a rural area. A full 75% of first-time home buyers want a single-family home.
From the Star Ledger:
Ranks of N.J. wealthy growing, not shrinking, budget officials say
The ranks of New Jersey wealthy taxpayers are growing, not shrinking, according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, which was pulled into the fight over the estate tax Wednesday.
Income statistics in OLS’ budget analysis contradict some claims that New Jersey is losing its wealthiest residents (despite actually losing its wealthiest resident).
While Gov. Chris Christie’s state budget does not eliminate the estate tax, the fervor surrounding its proposed phase out was prominent in state Senate and Assembly budget committee hearings this week as lawmakers jockeyed for budget data to back them up.
New Jersey is one of two states to levy estate and inheritance taxes, and its $675,000 exemption is far below the federal level. Proponents of phasing out the estate tax say it’s driving wealthy residents out of New Jersey, while opponents call it a gift to the very rich.
The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee in February approved a bill to eliminate the tax by 2021.
Assemblyman Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), who has introduced legislation to match the federal exemption, said Wednesday that “from the numbers I’ve looked at, is that we have had growth in the lower- to middle-income residents in New Jersey, and not necessarily an expansion in that higher end, that upper end.”
But studies actually show lower- and moderate-income residents are leaving, while the number of tax returns filed by top income earners is rising, Catherine Brennan, chief of Revenue, Finance and Appropriations at OLS, told Bucco and the Assembly Budget Committee.
“That would suggest that New Jersey is generating millionaires and the number of tax returns at the high end is actually increasing,” she said.
Forty-nine thousand taxpayers with income greater than $500,000 filed tax returns in 2012, the most recent year data was available, compared with about 20,000 in 1997, according to the state’s annual Statistics of Income report.
The 49,074 tax returns from people with more than $500,000 in income in 2012 was an all-time high, OLS said in its analysis. Meanwhile, tax returns filed by taxpayers with income less than $50,000 fell about 28 percent.
Wealthy residents’ income, too, was gaining. Taxable gross income from people making over $1 million rose 179 percent from 1997 to 2012, with an annual average increase of about 7 percent per year.
“Generally, gross income for taxpayers with less than $100,000 annual income has held stable or declined slightly over time,” the OLS report says. “Gross income for upper-income taxpayers has grown strongly, by at least 5.86 percent per year or more.”
This is how it is done!!
Gov Rick Scott got a mouthful at a Starbucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhzrYMHQFEs
Its this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUrtFD6-wH4
Politifact rates the heckler’s two claims as only half true, but rates Rick Scotts rebuttal as mostly true.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/apr/06/rick-scotts-starbucks-heckler/starbucks-heckler-claims-rick-scott-cut-medicaid-p/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/apr/06/rick-scotts-starbucks-heckler/did-gov-rick-scott-really-cut-access-womens-health/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/apr/06/rick-scott/rick-scott-correct-florida-created-1-million-jobs-/
The pumpkin strikes again. Dead on with my call that suburbs are not dead.
“Also, despite many reports about the lure of city life over recent years, especially among millennials, the report found that 52% of first-time home buyers want a home in the suburbs. Only 26% said they wanted to live in the city and 22% said they wanted to live in a rural area. A full 75% of first-time home buyers want a single-family home.”
[1] grim
As much as we, myself included, love a good anecdote, the Tepper discussion and this article simply point out that reliance on anecdotal evidence in the context of tax policy can be insufficient, and sometimes misleading.
Developing tax policy is like developing a cure for cancer: a single solution will only work on a portion of the population. I like to say that Einstein worked on his unified theory only because he found tax policy too challenging.
[5] pumpkin
It doesn’t matter. President Sanders will have us living on collectives and communal farms.
Pumpkin(so called village idiot) strikes again. Nj is not dying and the wealthy are not leaving in droves. If they were, cost of living would be going down, not up.
“The ranks of New Jersey wealthy taxpayers are growing, not shrinking, according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, which was pulled into the fight over the estate tax Wednesday.
Income statistics in OLS’ budget analysis contradict some claims that New Jersey is losing its wealthiest residents (despite actually losing its wealthiest resident).”
And nj losing it’s wealthiest resident has less to do with anything besides the fact that he is reaching retirement age and coming out of a divorce. He has made his money here, raised his family, and is going into the next stage of his life.
Look at those stats. Listening to politicians with an agenda of fear, like christie, would have you thinking nj was finished. Millionaires leaving in droves. Meanwhile, it’s the poor leaving. Bunch of clowns.
““That would suggest that New Jersey is generating millionaires and the number of tax returns at the high end is actually increasing,” she said.
Forty-nine thousand taxpayers with income greater than $500,000 filed tax returns in 2012, the most recent year data was available, compared with about 20,000 in 1997, according to the state’s annual Statistics of Income report.
The 49,074 tax returns from people with more than $500,000 in income in 2012 was an all-time high, OLS said in its analysis. Meanwhile, tax returns filed by taxpayers with income less than $50,000 fell about 28 percent.
Wealthy residents’ income, too, was gaining. Taxable gross income from people making over $1 million rose 179 percent from 1997 to 2012, with an annual average increase of about 7 percent per year.
“Generally, gross income for taxpayers with less than $100,000 annual income has held stable or declined slightly over time,” the OLS report says. “Gross income for upper-income taxpayers has grown strongly, by at least 5.86 percent per year or more.””
Blumps, ever consider that maybe the truth is somewhere between your Pollyannish view and the people who say NJ is dead?
…
I didn’t think so.
The weathly continue to grow in NJ, particuraly in the school and police administration ranks and political double dippers. Hooray.
Probably that many would like a site without trolls. Doesn’t mean it’s ever going to happen.
The pumpkin strikes again. Dead on with my call that suburbs are not dead.
“Also, despite many reports about the lure of city life over recent years, especially among millennials, the report found that 52% of first-time home buyers want a home in the suburbs.
I don’t know a thing about Rick Scott. The Starbucks as a matter of customer service should have kicked that woman out of the store. Where were the employees?
yome says:
April 7, 2016 at 7:39 am
Its this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUrtFD6-wH4
After the governor left the store, she should have been removed regardless……
What police or school officials are making more than 500,000? In 15 years (1997-2012), the number of people making more than 500,000 doubled. And 2012 was still pretty bleak times when people were writing off jersey. Imagine what will happen with those stats in this next boom? I can’t wait for this boom period; I’m going to try my best to take advantage of this upcoming boom and hopefully put myself in a position to be able to retire off it.
Bystander says:
April 7, 2016 at 8:45 am
The weathly continue to grow in NJ, particuraly in the school and police administration ranks and political double dippers. Hooray.
Do you honestly think a bunch of minimum wage employees would kick her out
From yesterday, billionaires with hot wives. Greenwich billionaire Peter Brant is married to former super model, Stephanie Seymour (former Axel Rose gf). She was on local news for DUI and crashing into another car. Man, does she look smoking for 47. Recent beach shot… NSFW.
http://bit.ly/1RZxh9f
I don’t know a thing about Rick Scott. The Starbucks as a matter of customer service should have kicked that woman out of the store. Where were the employees?
Watching the video – the governor walked in with about 5 people – so that would have been at least a $20-25 sale that was lost as a result of the irate customer. Anyone less than store manager would not have engaged, as the heckler appeared to be combative.
Other articles indicate that the heckler is not currently employed.
17. Mike,
Same thing I was thinking….
18. Bystander. Incredible…
@20, not employed? She has a fancy laptop and $5 macchiato. What is she railing about?
blump,
If someone is paid guarnateed 150k for rest of life, they are rich period. Perhaps they wont show up in the hard $500k/ year numbers but cmon that is over $12k a month with health covered. The number of $100k pensions more than doubled in NJ between 2010 and 2015. (900 to 1900) according to NJ watchdog. Most poor schlubs will be eating dog food 10 years into retirement.
It’s April 7th and the NJ Division of Taxation still does not have its act together for the April 15th deadline.
_____________________________________________________________
The New Jersey Division of Taxation has released the 2015 web application for filing the NJ-1065 Partnership Return but the application is buggy.
Investment clubs that are subject to the filing fee may be able to file their 2015 NJ-1065 at this time. However, investment clubs that are not subject to the NJ Partnership Filing Fee cannot complete and file their return using the application at this time.
The Division of Taxation is aware of the issue and is working on a solution. We are monitoring the situation closely and will provide updates as they become available.
At this time, we recommend that clubs that need to file the NJ-1065 return file a protective extension on Form Part-200-T.
Instructions for Completing Form Part-200-T
The Division of Taxation recommends using Internet Explorer to access the site. Chrome will not work as it does not support Java.
1. Go to https://www1.state.nj.us/TYTR_BusinessFilings/jsp/common/Login.jsp?taxcode=43
Enter your twelve-digit NJ Taxpayer ID (your federal EIN with three zeros at the end) and your password and click Submit. If you don’t have a password, you can create one by clicking the box under the password field.
2. Click the button next to “File Part-200-T and Payment”. Scroll down, make sure the correct Annual Return Period Dates (Jan 01 2015 and Dec 31 2015) are showing and click Submit.
3. You should now see the Partnership Application For Extension Of Time To File Return NJ-1065 screen. Enter 0 for the balance due and click Submit This Return.
4. You should now be on the Review Screen. Enter your contact information and click File Now.
5. If you are successful, you should get a confirmation. I haven’t been able to complete this.
6. Alternatively, you can file a paper copy of the PART-200-T. If you do, we recommend mailing it using certified mail.
It’s interesting that for some years now, I have posed this tax policy question, usually to liberals but sometimes to far right wing conservatives:
How do you define or calculate “fair share”?
I speak of it because I posted this question to a rather combative attorney friend of the far left persuasion who has always challenged me whenever he has the opportunity. And what I find remarkable was that, for all his willingness to engage me on virtually every other issue, his response was strikingly identical to many responses I get:
Crickets.
Whenever I pose that question, I shut down debate. 9 times out of 10, I get no response whatsoever, and when I do get a response, 9 times out of 10 that response shows an affinity for a particular sort of tax regime that the speaker considers “fair”:
A flat tax.
Now, this is by no means scientific, but I am reminded of this because I read a story about tax fairness and the author basically said that fairness is whatever the voters say it is, and that most voters think progressive taxation is fair (economists like Diamond, Saez, and Piketty tell us that the purpose of progressive taxation is to redistribute, so we are left with the circular argument that redistribution via progressive taxation is “fair” because it results in redistribution).
Yet, when voters (at least the ones I talk to) are asked to design a tax system that they consider “fair”, it winds up looking like a flat tax structure. This, I also find interesting.
And here’s the rub: The people who don’t answer me aren’t wrong. They simply decline to try to define the undefinable. Rather, they go to the default of “it’s fair because we say it is.” And they aren’t wrong–that is the definition.
Rick Scott was once the CEO of Columbia/HCA, a massive hospital chain. The federal government fined Columbia/HCA for Medicaid and Medicare fraud. That fine, a jaw-dropping 1.7 billion dollars, is the largest in American history.
But instead of going to jail, Rick Scott became the governor of Florida.
A guy scams the government and now is an elected official of the government. And in the three months since he’s been in office he’s doing his best to destroy the fourth largest state.
1. He rejected $2.4 billion in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
2. He wants to slash $4 billion in spending while cutting taxes for millionaires.
3. He tried to use state funds to build golf courses in state parks while cutting education by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.
4. He’s requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.
5. He just lopped off $2,300 a year in teacher salary to give massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.
Didn’t he win a second term as Governor?
Given what you’ve said – why was he elected in a public election? And why was he re-elected?
…Florida…
By the way, that reads like a straight cut and paste from a liberal rag with an agenda – especially the points that represent completely disjoint conjunction specifically paired to elicit emotional response.
And this one…
4. He’s requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.
The couth!
29. Truth is truth. And now this….
About 3,000 individuals with net assets of $1 million or more, not including their primary residence, moved from the city last year, with many citing rising racial tensions and worries about crime as factors in the decision,” reports the Chicago Tribune.
Chicago is third on the list of cities experiencing an exodus of millionaires, behind Paris and Rome.
Our accountant filed our NJ 1065 the other day, mailed – paper.
25 CMD,
The problem with asking the question is where you draw the line between what is fair and what is moral.
A plane crashes, you are stuck on a mountain, you packed food in your bags.
Fair is that it it yours. Fair is that you should eat before the 10 year old girl next to you as it is YOUR food. Is it moral to feed yourself and watch her starve?
Some people, through no fault of their own, draw a short stick in life. How many times have you heard ” life is not fair.” Redistribution is not fair either, but life is not fair.
I believe most don’t have a problem with redistribution as long as those receiving the benefits are attempting to get as many of their 8 cylinders firing. Its when they cut the ignition off, park and sit back and do nothing that most take issue with the situation. That also is not being fair, if you want help, you need to put in effort.
Then there are those that put in lots of effort, yet do not succeed. Sometimes they just don’t have the talent. Sometimes it’s others taking advantage of them (payday loans, schools with fake degrees, etc.) Had a discussion at work the other day about overdue inspections on cars and how much the fine is – remember getting clipped at a checkpoint when I was 20, no problem now as my newer car gets 4 years to wait. This issue targets mostly those with less money, not that they don’t work hard. Then the discussion led to Google cars, how are the towns going to make up for the lost revenue they are not receiving from traffic fines? You know it will come from somewhere.
I remember once when I was younger applying for a loan from a well known company, small loan to buy a car as my parents were not well off at all, and mom did not drive. I was given a quote that was in nosebleed/loanshark territory, but hey, it’s legal. The owner of that loan company, that legally tried to prey on me, later donated millions for a wing on a hospital. Legal vs moral, sure it was legal, but was it moral?
Who decides? Just like hospital billing. Legal vs moral is a grey area.
Just because you can (legally) do something does not mean that (morally) you should do it.
Legally can be bought and is bought every day through lobbyists…
….Uh….$50m….Oh no bubble here….
That’s why rental-car company Hertz just made a $50 million strategic investment in Luxe, a San Francisco-based startup that makes it its job to handle the parking for you.
Luxe works as a valet on-demand. In a way similar to Uber, you tap on an app when you need your car parked, and it tracks you as you arrive at your destination, whether it’s at a restaurant for dinner or at your office for the day.
The startup does more than just park the car — it can also refill the gas or have it washed while you’re in meetings. Then you can either schedule your return or tap the button to have your car returned to you by a Luxe valet.
This is not a true comparison. A true comparison would be a government agent with a gun standing behind the starving girl, taking your food, and giving it to her. The armed government agent with a gun, who would put you in a cage if you disobey, is the one who decides who deserves and gets what.
You’re never given the chance to make a moral choice.
Raymond Reddington formerly Phoenix says: says:
April 7, 2016 at 12:04 pm
25 CMD,
The problem with asking the question is where you draw the line between what is fair and what is moral.
A plane crashes, you are stuck on a mountain, you packed food in your bags.
Fair is that it it yours. Fair is that you should eat before the 10 year old girl next to you as it is YOUR food. Is it moral to feed yourself and watch her starve?
“You cut Medicaid so I can not get proper care.You are an a** hole”
“@20, not employed? She has a fancy laptop and $5 macchiato. What is she railing about?”
35. single payer of GTFo
34. DFENS,
It is a true comparison, but not a “fits all situations” comparison.
There was no gun to the head of Martin Shkreli when he jacked up the price of the medicine people needed. Where was your so called “govt agent” that day? On vacation, take the day off? Name the person who took away Marty’s chance to have moral choice?
The “armed govt” that you feel is taking away your money and giving it to starving kids without your “moral choice” is able to do that because you don’t have the ability to influence or control them to your liking. The one’s who do have the ability to influence your govt are those who have pure hatred and contempt for the middle class and would prefer for you to never climb the ladder which is why they grease it so well for you..
DFENS
Redux
And I quote CMD from the other day..
“It”s only a problem if it’s goring your ox. If it’s goring the other guy’s ox, its a benefit.”
37 – Uh, dude…..Shkreli was arrested by the FBI after a federal indictment…
The FBI…you know, the ones with guns?
Nice write-up, nom.
Anyone with any kind of knowledge when it comes to economics should realize why a progressive tax system is needed in a capitalist based economic system. Competition is everything when it comes to a capitalist economic model. If you have a flat tax system, you have no means to battle monopolistic tendencies that form over time in a capitalist system. Monopolies are the devil in capitalism, they destroy competition, and eventually bring the economic system to a standstill. What is wrong with implementing a progressive tax on somebody that dominates all the other players in the game of capitalism in the name of saving/protecting the economic system? Why is that a bad thing? Would we rather just have this player dominate the system to the point where it destroys the very essence of capitalism…..competition?
So what is fair? Fair is whatever keeps the economic system functioning in the way it was intended to work.
“Now, this is by no means scientific, but I am reminded of this because I read a story about tax fairness and the author basically said that fairness is whatever the voters say it is, and that most voters think progressive taxation is fair (economists like Diamond, Saez, and Piketty tell us that the purpose of progressive taxation is to redistribute, so we are left with the circular argument that redistribution via progressive taxation is “fair” because it results in redistribution).
Yet, when voters (at least the ones I talk to) are asked to design a tax system that they consider “fair”, it winds up looking like a flat tax structure. This, I also find interesting.”
39,
Yes, you are correct. But not for jacking up the price of the medicine. That was legal.
What a loser. Can’t make this stuff up. Florida is beyond screwed. I will never raise my child there. This joker ruining people’s lives just because he wants to kiss the a$$ of the wealthy. Does he understand that we have public education for a reason. EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM IT. There is not a single person in our country (doesn’t matter if you have kids or not) that doesn’t benefit from it. Put it this way, do you want to live in a country full of idiots with no type of education? That’s a recipe for destruction. Guess this guy is trying his best to go the destructive route.
Essex says:
April 7, 2016 at 11:32 am
Rick Scott was once the CEO of Columbia/HCA, a massive hospital chain. The federal government fined Columbia/HCA for Medicaid and Medicare fraud. That fine, a jaw-dropping 1.7 billion dollars, is the largest in American history.
But instead of going to jail, Rick Scott became the governor of Florida.
A guy scams the government and now is an elected official of the government. And in the three months since he’s been in office he’s doing his best to destroy the fourth largest state.
1. He rejected $2.4 billion in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
2. He wants to slash $4 billion in spending while cutting taxes for millionaires.
3. He tried to use state funds to build golf courses in state parks while cutting education by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.
4. He’s requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.
5. He just lopped off $2,300 a year in teacher salary to give massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.
Wow, didn’t even think about that. Who needs cops on patrol when cars can’t go pass the speed limit? Wow, these driver less cars are going to put an insane amount of people out of the job.
“Then the discussion led to Google cars, how are the towns going to make up for the lost revenue they are not receiving from traffic fines? You know it will come from somewhere.”
So true. Good overall post.
“I remember once when I was younger applying for a loan from a well known company, small loan to buy a car as my parents were not well off at all, and mom did not drive. I was given a quote that was in nosebleed/loanshark territory, but hey, it’s legal. The owner of that loan company, that legally tried to prey on me, later donated millions for a wing on a hospital. Legal vs moral, sure it was legal, but was it moral?”
[42] pumps,
Now this is low information thinking at its best. Let’s consider:
“1. He rejected $2.4 billion in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.”
A high speed rail line for what is arguably a short distance? And who would use it? So Scott rejects start up money for a project that would, in all liklehood, result in Floridians shouldering debt for years to come over the FL equivalent of the Springfield Monorail from the Simpsons.
“2. He wants to slash $4 billion in spending while cutting taxes for millionaires.”
Florida doesn’t have an income tax. So I don’t get the latter part of that quote. How do you slash zero? Negative tax rates? Is Scott now giving demogrants to millionaires?
“3. He tried to use state funds to build golf courses in state parks while cutting education by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.”
I am not even sure how these are linked except through the fungibility of money.
“4. He’s requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.”
You mean like the Obama administration wants to do with mandatory retirement accounts?
[45] pumps
And let me guess: Scott is a shameless extrovert who has been known to associate with professed thespians, right?
[40] pumps
” If you have a flat tax system, you have no means to battle monopolistic tendencies that form over time in a capitalist system. . . . . What is wrong with implementing a progressive tax on somebody that dominates all the other players in the game of capitalism in the name of saving/protecting the economic system?”
I have never heard of using taxation as a tool to combat market concentration. Nor do I think that it would be an especially effective tool unless you are trying to artificially drive up the cost of goods/services offered by the monopolistic producer in order to favor that producer’s competitors. That has its own problems, namely it is logically incoherent and in a true monopoly situation with barriers to entry, wreak utter havoc with consumers.
I’m afraid you lost me with this one. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate?
What is number 4 doing in that list?
[33] phoenix
To summarize, you are saying that redistribution is right because it is moral, or to put it more technically, it is the device by which we enforce and implement morality.
Morality.
Makes me wonder whose morality. Putting aside the starving girl example, which is poor because its a one-off, what morality are we speaking of? And from whence does it derive? You realize you are straying into a bit of a quagmire here, right.
Morality is a religious construct-cum-societal construct, and over time the left has adopted what it considers a “secular” version of “morality”. In effect, they cherry-picked what they liked from religious tenets of morality and declared them to be humanist or communitarian or secular ethical goals.
But it comes down to this: those are policies in need of funds. And the mechanism for funding them is taxation. But there is no inherent link between those policies and the need (?) for redistribution. You can fund them without progressive taxation.
So why use progressive taxation? Because you can. Because you can simply say “you have more, we need more” as the OWS protester said to the church spokesman when OWS took over their property in NYC.
Redistribution is a means to an end. The end is what the majority says it is. The means are what the majority says will further it.
So no, morality doesn’t inherently mandate redistribution. It justifies it, at least in the eyes of the redistributors. It is a convenient excuse.
Come on guys, you took up the mantle. Kudos. Very few do.
Now wow me with some erudition and dazzling logic.
Disagree. You are connecting two important economic hubs in Florida. This will not be some useless infrastructure that nobody uses. It will help to expand economic activity for those areas.
““1. He rejected $2.4 billion in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.”
A high speed rail line for what is arguably a short distance? And who would use it? So Scott rejects start up money for a project that would, in all liklehood, result in Floridians shouldering debt for years to come over the FL equivalent of the Springfield Monorail from the Simpsons.”
Florida govt workers barely make anything and now this jacka$$ has taken 5% out of their ability to consume. This will surely result in increased economic activity, right? Stupid move by a stupid individual that has no understanding of economics.
““4. He’s requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.”
You mean like the Obama administration wants to do with mandatory retirement accounts?”
I think he is referring to corporate handouts. Who benefits from corporate handouts, that’s right, millionaires.
““2. He wants to slash $4 billion in spending while cutting taxes for millionaires.”
Florida doesn’t have an income tax. So I don’t get the latter part of that quote. How do you slash zero? Negative tax rates? Is Scott now giving demogrants to millionaires?”
When your state education system is already severely underfunded, it’s kind of sick to be wasting tax money on golf courses.
““3. He tried to use state funds to build golf courses in state parks while cutting education by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.”
I am not even sure how these are linked except through the fungibility of money.”
I will be back in a little for the tax response. Had some requests made that need to be addressed asap.
Cameron in the UK is under allot of heat for the Panama Papers, he admitted he did have a stake in his old man’s offshore tax avoidance scheme. Will he go down like the PM of Iceland?
B O High…coming to Trenton.
So fitting.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/04/should_new_nj_school_be_named_after_president_obam.html#incart_most-commented_essex_article
The fact that Ted Cruz supports it has set the flat tax back 100 years.
I wish Anonymous would just core dump all the juicy shit it has on rich/famous/political people onto the intertubes, and let us have a good wallow in it.
D-FENS [57];
There are also schools named after Henry Harrison and James Garfield, two largely inconsequential presidents with vanishingly short tenures.
However, given the damage BHO has done in office advancing the soci@list cause, I would liken naming a school after him to naming one after Stalin or Mao.
Taxes and fairness? Who decides? The problem is not only how much government spends, it is what they spend it on and who has to pay how much. Does anyone think any portion of this is done correctly? Does anyone feel they pay too little? If you can’t decide on these matters how can the question of fair share even be approached?
Government cannot legislate morality. Taxes cannot be voluntary. Quite the conundrum!
Trump to trounce in NYC.
FL is a cesspool. Former resident.
What is the main purpose of taxes? It redistributes capital to provide services that bring stability to society. Stability is everything.
Now how can taxes be used as a tool to combat market concentration? Easy. How is a monopoly formed? It’s when someone becomes so rich and powerful, they destroy their competition to the point that they have no competition. If you cut off their ability to amass that kind of capital/power, you cut off their ability to form a monopoly. Taxing 90% of any income made over 10 million dollars in a given year, increases competition, not reduces it. This guy can’t run away with the win, it’s impossible for him to get so far ahead, that his competition has no chance of competing with him. He will always be within striking distance of his comp, which will not allow him to relax on his competition, and keep the pedal to the floor, which is why we all like capitalism, right? For it’s ability to force people to constantly compete, right?
So how can you be for a competitive environment, and at the same time be for unlimited capital accumulation for the individual/families? It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t work, can’t have both. So a progressive tax system keeps the playing field somewhat level, and forces constant competition among the players instead of letting someone run away with it. Any coincidence that bush lowered the taxes on the rich and instead of spurring economic growth, it decreased it, aiding in increasing income inequality?
If you truly understand economics, you will understand this. In a capitalist based system. income inequality is a terrible thing. It’s a major sign of sickness. It means competition is decreasing, and the system is dying.
Just try and understand what I’m trying to say, instead of rushing to call me an idiot. Give it a chance.
Captain Nom Deplume, Besotted Rummy says:
April 7, 2016 at 2:14 pm
[40] pumps
” If you have a flat tax system, you have no means to battle monopolistic tendencies that form over time in a capitalist system. . . . . What is wrong with implementing a progressive tax on somebody that dominates all the other players in the game of capitalism in the name of saving/protecting the economic system?”
I have never heard of using taxation as a tool to combat market concentration. Nor do I think that it would be an especially effective tool unless you are trying to artificially drive up the cost of goods/services offered by the monopolistic producer in order to favor that producer’s competitors. That has its own problems, namely it is logically incoherent and in a true monopoly situation with barriers to entry, wreak utter havoc with consumers.
I’m afraid you lost me with this one. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate?
Fairness is a subjective comparative condition based on someone’s perception of expected return for a subjective effort compared to another.
63- So people calling for lower taxes on our most wealthy to spur economic growth are completely illiterate when it comes to economics. Why would cutting taxes at the top, spur competition aka economic activity? How and why? So you give them even more capital to win this game of capitalism? Completely insane.
You know what is sad, how many people are pushing this faux economic idea at this given moment? Can’t fix stupid, I guess.
I say that because every discussion of the fairness of a condition can be broken down into a comparison of
work 1 -> outcome 1
work 2 -> outcome 2
The comparison is nearly always subjective, and clouded by the position of the person making the comparison.
If:
work 1 = work 2
and
outcome 1 > outcome 2
The person associated with outcome 2 will claim that the situation is unfair, the person associated with outcome 1 will claim the situation is fair.
In reality work 1 is likely greater than work 2, which is why the outcome is greater, however the position of the person associated with outcome 2 only sees the outcome, and not the effort, and makes an assumption that they did work equal to that of the person with outcome 1.
63- Forgot to add this. If you think pricing would increase, please explain. If you are increasing competition, how would prices be raised on the consumer?
How exactly does redistribution result in increased competition? Your hypothetical example is exactly that, and is not reality. Show me a real world example of this monopolistic situation that can be corrected through redistribution.
I think people understand what is morally right and wrong. You know when you are ripping someone off and you know when someone is ripping you off. That’s why we have a public education system, to teach right from wrong based on what we agree as a society. So we shouldn’t over complicate what “fair” is. Fair is doing the right thing.
Fat Tire Ale…now in NJ.
Let the celebration begin.
What would happen if we eliminated all wealth over 500 million and redistributed it in the form of a tax refund to the rest of the population? 500 million is still a hell of a lot of money, more than anyone needs. Just think of the economic competition that would ensue for that capital? It would spur growth like no other. It would be beautiful to witness that kind of economic activity.
grim says:
April 7, 2016 at 4:40 pm
How exactly does redistribution result in increased competition? Your hypothetical example is exactly that, and is not reality. Show me a real world example of this monopolistic situation that can be corrected through redistribution.
Pretty sure in 5 years, everyone who got the money would have spent it on nonsense, and it would all return to the same people who it was taken from, who have the effort, drive, determination, know how, and are willing to risk enough to make it back.
We’d be in the exact same position, and you would be here implicating all of these people in some kind of crime.
Tax refunds for the current tax season are estimated at $125 billion dollars.
What kind of beautiful economic growth do you think we’ll see.
It’s generally known that after a certain point thise with money and usually lots of it stop spending. Folks without much cash will spend every penny on essentials and fun stuff. So the stimulus is effectively moving cash throughout the economy. Instead of it sitting in some millionaire’s bank account.
And if the capital returns to a few hands after 5 years, we do it again. Constant economic growth aka constant economic competition. Isn’t this exactly what the boom and bust is? Build it up, tear it down, and we build it up again. Instead of the economic system crashing and hurting everyone, we artificially force the top to give back before they crash the system due to the enormous concentration of wealth, screwing everyone to a period of depression or recession.
grim says:
April 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Pretty sure in 5 years, everyone who got the money would have spent it on nonsense, and it would all return to the same people who it was taken from, who have the effort, drive, determination, know how, and are willing to risk enough to make it back.
We’d be in the exact same position, and you would be here implicating all of these people in some kind of crime.
So yeah those tax refunds will buy stuff and lots of it. Stimulus achieved.
The net worth of those billionaires isn’t in dollar bills sitting in the bank, it’s ownership and equity positions in businesses they own, or have invested in.
How do you distribute that?
Let me know when I get my Walmart, and I don’t want a shitty one in Sheboygan, give me the one in Bloomingdale on 23, this way I can drive to it.
And if I get my Walmart – do you think I’d effectively run it, or just run it right into the ground?
Or do you just mail everyone stock certificates for $20.00 in equity of someone else’s company?
Pretty sure, the day after, there would be people going door to door, trading them for $5 gift cards, and the new companies owners would be selling out without giving it a second thought.
Even better, lets cut a Picasso up into 50,000 little tiny scraps, and mail them all out.
Let me know when the wealthy pension funds are raided too, so I can get my piece of that. What, you really think your pension would be secure from redistribution? That’s billions of dollars just sitting there doing nothing.
Obviously, it’s complicated, def need time to think about it. Off the top of my head, forced liquidation. Give them a drive to do it again. Life wasn’t meant to be lived sitting back doing nothing. You are still leaving them with 500 million to do it all again? Not like you are starting them off on the same base as everyone else.
grim says:
April 7, 2016 at 5:12 pm
The net worth of those billionaires isn’t in dollar bills sitting in the bank, it’s ownership and equity positions in businesses they own, or have invested in.
How do you distribute that?
Let me know when I get my Walmart, and I don’t want a shitty one in Sheboygan, give me the one in Bloomingdale on 23, this way I can drive to it.
And if I get my Walmart – do you think I’d effectively run it, or just run it right into the ground?
Or do you just mail everyone stock certificates for $20.00 in equity of someone else’s company?
Pretty sure, the day after, there would be people going door to door, trading them for $5 gift cards, and the new companies owners would be selling out without giving it a second thought.
Go drop some money off in Atlantic City – rumor is they are going to run out of money tomorrow.
Destroying a company to grow the economy?
Broken Windows Fallacy….
Liquidate it? To who? Another company would would get the assets cheap and then actually become a monopoly?
You make no sense. You don’t grow an economy by taking from someone or destroying something someone created.
81- These people are ego-maniacs who are as competitive as they come. If anything, you are doing them a service. Giving them something to live for again. Something to feed that drive they possess. They live for competition. You think gates has any competition right now? Guy must be losing it.
84 – Give me your house – you can make enough money to buy another one. I’ll be by later with the moving truck.
What? Give me a break. Who is destroying companies? And who says some shouldn’t be destroyed based on how big they have become. I would much rather see small businesses competing with each other as opposed to giant corporations run by billionaires.
grim says:
April 7, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Destroying a company to grow the economy?
Broken Windows Fallacy….
I’m stating to leave people with 500 million in the name of competition, and you are asking me to give away my house.
grim says:
April 7, 2016 at 5:25 pm
84 – Give me your house – you can make enough money to buy another one. I’ll be by later with the moving truck.
I doubt that businesses are always funded, especially corporations with any of the C level executives own money.
What, you don’t like when someone else decides to give away your possessions or wealth?
I’ve no control over any of it. Not one iota. So I think of it very rarely. But then I am not the average pensioner.
New Home Reality on CNBC. Empty nesters (boomers) looking to downsize and the Millenials want better homes with more amenities. Smaller crap shacks are overlooked.
Barclay likes ‘remodeling plays’ …. crap shack overhauls….
[63] pumps
Your example contradicts itself. If you have a monopoly then by definition, there is no competition. In your example, you tax the monopoly actor but taxes are a cost; they get to pass taxes through if they have no meaningful competition. If they do have meaningful competition, they aren’t a monopoly.
Further, you never get to that point because we already have antitrust laws generally and other industries have hard caps on market share.
There are also a lot of problems using tax to regulate size or growth. It’s a horribly imprecise tool that would create more problems than it solves. That’s probably why governments don’t use it to regulate markets.
[65] pumps
“You know what is sad, how many people are pushing this faux economic idea at this given moment”
Including the president? He had a chance to push for elimination of lower rates on cap gains but settled for two hikes in the rate. If he had the backing of eminent economic minds like yours, it should be easy to say raise taxes on capital gains to the same rate as earned income. But he didn’t. In fact, it wasn’t a compromise; he never called for it. Rather he called for a higher rate that was still lower than marginal. And he didn’t call for hikes to corporate taxes, which you seem to think are low, nor did he call for greater taxes on income paid to foreign investors. Why is that?
[72] pumps
“What would happen if we eliminated all wealth over 500 million and redistributed it in the form of a tax refund to the rest of the population?”
Do you know what a giant sucking sound is?
Tesla model 3 first week 325,000
This will be good for some sound bite editing and Internet memes
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/07/steve-wynn-nobody-likes-being-around-poor-people.html
money money money
Steve Wynn – one tight – faced SOB – which makes one a little uneasy.
Did I ever tell you guys the about the time that I was interviewed by Forbes? The journalist’s introduction and overview of Forbes didn’t sound very far of from Wynn’s comments.
And Capone was arrested for tax evasion.
The govt, at all levels, has more than enough ways to persecute people under the cover of another… even if it’s just arresting, indicting, and/or prosecuting someone they know they’ll lose to.
Raymond Reddington formerly Phoenix says: says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm
39,
Yes, you are correct. But not for jacking up the price of the medicine. That was legal.
What about Moose Drool?
http://bigskybrew.com/beers/moose-drool/
Better than Fat Tire….
Essex says:
April 7, 2016 at 4:43 pm
Fat Tire Ale…now in NJ.
Let the celebration begin.
You are correct, sir. By definition, there is no competition. I truly believe our economy has become monopolized, but in a hybrid type version of monopoly. They have found ways to skirt around all the anti-trust laws, so it doesn’t look like a monopoly on the outside, but from the inside, that industry truly is. You are a lawyer, you know what they do.
Proof? Tell me what small business I can start and have a decent chance of not going under with that doesn’t have to do with service? Let me go start an auto parts store, would you loan me the money? Most of the businesses where real money can be made have been monopolized. They have lobbied govt to set up laws that make it hard for small biz to enter their market. They have only left the crumbs; businesses that are usually service based as opposed to commodity based.
Comrade Nom Deplume, Recovering From The Slopes says:
April 7, 2016 at 5:37 pm
[63] pumps
Your example contradicts itself. If you have a monopoly then by definition, there is no competition. In your example, you tax the monopoly actor but taxes are a cost; they get to pass taxes through if they have no meaningful competition. If they do have meaningful competition, they aren’t a monopoly.
Further, you never get to that point because we already have antitrust laws generally and other industries have hard caps on market share.
There are also a lot of problems using tax to regulate size or growth. It’s a horribly imprecise tool that would create more problems than it solves. That’s probably why governments don’t use it to regulate markets.
Exactly what I was talking about in post 84. Solid evidence to back me up here from a link on nom’s wynn article.
“”Being rich isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, according to Minecraft billionaire Markus Persson.
In a series of tweets over the weekend, the video-game designer bemoaned the loneliness, isolation and lack of motivation that large wealth can create. (Tweet this.)
“The problem with getting everything is you run out of reasons to keep trying, and human interaction becomes impossible due to imbalance,” he tweeted.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/31/minecraft-billionaire-complains-about-being-rich.html
101. i really love the Ale. Light & refreshing.
This ain’s Babo’s JC….
What’s the Latest Course in Preschool? Vegan Food
In Jersey City, a preschool serves up tofu, squash risotto; ‘cool factor’
“They make their own almond milk,” she said. “It shows a level of dedication to the kids’ well being that I would assume would be seen in other parts of the way the school runs.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/latest-twist-in-fashionable-preschool-vegan-menu-1459964836
Saturday afternoon family matinee movie (clot Edition):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI1Ovh5JnOE
Nice Article. Worth a read beyond the front page.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ted-cruz-win-losing-york-145005456.html
Moose
What exactly is “the damage BHO has done in office advancing the soci@list cause”?
No Energy to debate this tax issue, but a few points some of which have been made.
“What is fair?” is subjective. The question is more how should the government raise revenue. Go look at where the government gets its money and then have the discussion.
People use BS arguments. For instance “the 47% don’t pay tax”. They actually do. Everyone’s first dollar is taxed the same, as is their second dollar. The poor mans last dollar say ($29,999) is taxed the same as the rich mans same dollar ($29,999). The difference is the poor man runs out of dollars to tax long before the higher bands kick in. Also EITC will have a bigger impact on the poor man, possibly taking them to a refund, Not so much with the rich man. Their multiple credits may dwarf the poor mans EITC, but still not take them to a refund.
Having more income to tax is not redistribution.
Flat tax will kill this country.
You wonder that despite how much has come out about Trump, how much dry powder is in reserve. I think there is a lot. No land deal issues have surfaced yet.
People are starting to scrutinize the little flesh he is putting on his policy sound bites.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35974537
One for Eddie Ray.
http://tinyurl.com/z8ot2by
49 “To summarize, you are saying that redistribution is right because it is moral, or to put it more technically, it is the device by which we enforce and implement morality.”
I did not say I believe redistribution is right because it is moral. Really it should not be necessary at all. I do believe that it is a device used to enforce and implement morality.
Redistribution is a means to an end. The end is what the majority says it is. The means are what the majority says will further it.
This is the “quagmire.” Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Do the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. That can be argued back and forth all day. I can find examples of each that both work.
It’s always the extremes of things that cause the most issues. Many of the so called “needs” of the many are either self-induced or caused by perpetrators that prey on them. Fools and crooks.
CMD, Your argument is clearly written and well thought out. It would be an interesting experiment to eliminate progressive taxation.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease…