Fed: Americans’ wealth dropped 40 percent

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by SamH

Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit are doing just that.

Seriously? I know the Fed was contemplating buying mortgage securities but I didn't know "The Bernank" was actually buying the properties.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

In some ways property ownership could very well be a liability. A friend of mine and her family sued one of their relatives and received a massive lot which had been used for business and valued at one time for over $5 million. They "won" their case. Now no one knows how to run the business, it's appraised at $800,000, they can't sell in this economy, but the property taxes are overwhelming them even though a couple have six-figure salaries. I don't know if they can find a buyer whose price is high enough for them to sell at break-even.

BTW, that North Dakota issue was rejected. Supposedly even some "conservatives" voted against eliminating property taxes.

Oh, make no mistake, some "conservatives" are just as petty and control freakish as most liberals are.

[Roselle]

I've read a little on trends concerning home ownership with the younger generation. Seems that with high college debt, and shifting jobs, owning a home has less value to many of the echo boom generation. If this is the case, our governments enormous efforts over the last few years to re-inflate the housing market will not workout as hoped.

"The End of An American Dream?"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...merican-dream/

snippet from Walter Russell Mead's sight:

...Gross points out in his article that home ownership is problematic for many younger Americans. It isn’t so much about cost (though the tight credit standards currently prevailing as an overreaction to the excessively lax standards during the boom are a problem) as about flexibility. Young people move more; having to buy and sell a house every time they move exposes them to unnecessary costs and risks.
Gross doesn’t mention another trend which supports his core argument: that as young people delay marriage and divorce remains prevalent, the 30 year mortgage looks less attractive — perhaps particularly to young men. Renting an apartment makes a lot more sense if two people are just living together or aren’t sure their marriage will stick. It is much easier and cheaper to sort out a lease when a couple splits up than to manage the consequence of buying a house together.
In any case, Gross points out that the shifting preference among young people away from home ownership toward rental parallels a larger shift. As he writes:...

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

BTW, that North Dakota issue was rejected. Supposedly even some "conservatives" voted against eliminating property taxes.

From a conservative standpoint, the property tax is probably the most defensible tax, since it a very local tax and local communities can decide what package of tax rates and local services they want to offer. And people can vote with their feet towards which communities offer the best deal. With all the other taxes it is much easier to redistribute towards politically favored groups.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by stinkcat_14

From a conservative standpoint, the property tax is probably the most defensible tax, since it a very local tax and local communities can decide what package of tax rates and local services they want to offer. And people can vote with their feet towards which communities offer the best deal. With all the other taxes it is much easier to redistribute towards politically favored groups.

It still means that you can never own your property, which means that you can never have real freedom.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Oh, make no mistake, some "conservatives" are just as petty and control freakish as most liberals are.

These people call themselves conservatives until the government school they send their kids to decides to cut their band classes for lack of funds. Strange the way things work in a country where supposedly people have the right to own property which is not subject to being confiscated by the government.

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

It still means that you can never own your property, which means that you can never have real freedom.

Is there any tax under which people can have real freedom?

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by stinkcat_14

Is there any tax under which people can have real freedom?

Yeah the taxes God commanded

[stinkcat_14]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Yeah the taxes God commanded

And what tax did God command?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Yeah the taxes God commanded

That's the one where you give 10% of your stuff to the state, right?

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

That's the one where you give 10% of your stuff to the state, right?

Eh kinda it was a bit more detailed than just 10 per cent.

First Tithe

Second Tithe

Third Tithe

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

...Anthropological Climate Change is proven false

One can't prove anything false. And on the contrary ACC reached the .05 on the null in 1995 (95% confidence), and the evidence from many sources has only strengthened that confidence. the science is very "robust" that ACC is real and a danger.

Now I have this idea that if people had heeded JPII back in 1990 to mitigate ACC, that it was everyone's responsibility, we'd ALL be better off today, and the 2008 economic downturn (if it would have happened at all) would not have been nearly so bad.

That is, if people instead of speculating in real estate (buying homes they could not afford on balloon mortgages, thinking the prices would forever be rising, and they could make a killing when they sold) and other such misguided greedy and profligate behavior, had instead been investing in energy/resource efficient/conservative measures and going on alt energy (either out of sensible greed or environmental concerns) the economy would be in a much better situation today. Or at least people would be in much better shape to weather the downturn, bec their energy bills were so much lower. It's just a hypothesis. What if.

Very sad we as a people chose the lose-lose-lose-BIG-LOSE path (which is happening with ACC causing tremendous harms now and much more into the future -- severe floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, disease spread, sea-rise, and concomitant harms from local and regional pollution, not to mention wars over oil and resources, etc) instead of the win-win-win-win path.

Oh well, so much for the world. It was nice while it lasted

[MugenOne]

Young US households — those aged 35-to-44 — lost a stunning 59 percent of their wealth during the recession, a government report released yesterday revealed.
That’s the stiffest hit of any age group, said the report from the US Census Bureau.
The age group — typically struggling with mortgages, tuition bills and rising tax bills — makes up the backbone of America’s middle class.

The losses were mainly due to the drop in the value of their homes during the 2005 through 2010 period, the report said.

“Lower- and middle-income households got especially creamed because their biggest asset is their home, and that got crushed,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1yKkRrkoV



This is the same group who voted for the "messiah" hope and change. Change is all they have in their pocket.