« First « Previous Comments 4 - 43 of 77 Next » Last » Search these comments
That said, if the buyer backed out was a super extraordinary level of asshole, The competent broker will still go through with it because he really thinks there was a serious wrong here that needs to be remedied. And while it's hard to tell from a TV interview that couple has a certain suspect stench to them which makes me wonder about the whole thing.
zzyzzx saysYeah, the Empty Wallet Fund...
They should have read the contract before they signed it.
I wouldn't waste the time reading it. I can promise it's in 99% of all contracts realtors use with buyers and sellers. It's just really petty for a broker to actually take action on it.
I supposed they could have red lined that part of the contract to avoid it. They just need to read to find the language, cause it's always there.
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate. People do nothing to earn the appreciation of land. People produce no wealth from the appreciation of land. All wealth obtained by one family from land appreciation directly comes from other families. It is a zero-sum game that fucks up the economy and lowers our real economic output by preventing people from relocating and from spending their hard earned income on anything but housing. If all real estate appreciation, which is really only land appreciation, were taxed at 100%, there would be no housing crisis and less crime, and our economy would be better.
The agent should have explained this clause to them.
No one would buy property, and no one would build any property. We would end up in a permanent severe depression.
Let's put that theory to the test. I'll bet your damn wrong.
In other words, you're not man enough to have your ideas tested against the real world.
They are not my ideas. They are simply the laws of economics and common sense.
Strategist saysThey are not my ideas. They are simply the laws of economics and common sense.
You are just making shit up. There is no law of economics that says taxing appreciation of land would destroy an economy. That's just plain silly. How can anyone respect any of your opinions when you pull shit like that out of your ass?
Dan8267 saysStrategist saysThe only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate
No one would buy property, and no one would build any property. We would end up in a permanent severe depression.
There is no law of economics that says taxing appreciation of land would destroy an economy.
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate.
Allow me to remind you of what you really said:
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate.
Says the guy who doesn't OWN any property.
There's no way your system could ever be implemented. There's zero political will or ability to do it.
You'd destroy probably 90% of peoples wealth in one fell swoop
Assuming properties would still appreciate
what other tax would you cut?
Any net tax increase will be met with resistance.
Is our system perfect?
Say you buy yourself a private island
Dan - a sincere question is asked of you at post no. 22. Regards
Dan said...."Everyone will still build useful structures to sellor do business in"
While I think the volume of transactions would be way down, but if we could live with that, I guess this would work. Perhaps I am missing something but the one flaw I may see to your theory is if they cannot earn money from selling it, why would they build it?
b...b...but it's the only solution!!
My tax plan would only increase taxes enough to end deficit. This is how I would tax land.
1. Call T the total spending by local government.
2. Call L the total value of privately owned land measured in dollars as accessed by the existing tax authorities.
3. Call Sx the total value of land owned by person X.
4. Let E be an easing function which we can decide on later.
5. Your taxes on your land would be t = E(Sx, L, T).
The idiotadsADDS nothing to the conversation
So he childishly mocks his opponent like a toddler throwing a tantrum.BlueSardine says
Dan8267 saysThe only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate
You are indeed missing something important. Capital gains is, by definition, the real amount after currency depreciation of the price a good sells for above the cost basis of the previous purchase of the good. That means that new construction isn't subject to capital gains tax. It also means that if you buy a $200,000 house and add $50,000 of improvements and sell it for $260,000, then you are only taxed $10,000 on the transaction because your cost basis is $250,000.
Dan8267 saysThe idiotadsADDS nothing to the conversation
Does anyone understand you formula?
E(Sx, L, T) = C
C = Communism.
Look, all trolling aside, if you are unable to spell "adds" correctly, you have no reason to even own a computer. This is 3rd grade shit...
BlueSardine saysDan8267 saysThe idiotadsADDS nothing to the conversation
BlueSardine saysIf this is what passes for "masters of science" these days, we might as well sell the whole fucking thing to the chinese...
Well , you again validated my point that those 31000 scientist, unless they are expert, count for nothing.
And if you are criticizing others for grammar, please make sure you are correct, "chinese" should be spelled with a capital "C"
Check. Mate.
Warren Buffet purchased a house somewhere in Laguna Beach for $100,000 decades ago. It was recently put up for sale for $11 million.
Based on your rules, I should be able to buy it for $100,000. It should rent for $40,000 per month. Gosh, I would be rich like hell.
I love you Dan. I'm beginning to love your idea.
If you truly owned a house like you claim, you would know the building can appreciate also, not just the land.
You clearly don't understand my idea, but yes, if it cost a mere $100k or less to build that house decades ago then adjusted for currency debasement it would cost even less to build that house today. So it's the land, not the house, that appreciated. Why should Buffet reek in the profits of the appreciation of land he did not create and did not make better? Land is fundamentally a public and fixed resource. Why should anyone profit at the expense of society for the appreciation of a public resource that no one has a legitimate first owner claim on?
Go on, explain that.
the smartest guy (according to you) on the site.
It's probably swamp land in Florida.
The first piece of land sold, was stolen property, and as per law it still belongs to the original owner.
Even natural resources like oil, gold, copper etc belongs to every human being on the planet, who deserve to be paid every time something is extracted from THEIR LAND.
But we don't live in that kind of world.
So I just go with the tide, buy residential parcels, and hope to get rich one day. I am just a selfish human being, like all normal human beings. You may call me a Capitalist Peeg.
Strategist saysBut we don't live in that kind of world.
Irrelevant. A mere 10 years ago we didn't live in a world with smartphones. A mere 20 years ago, few people had mobile phones. A mere 40 years ago, few people had computers. A mere 60 years ago, few people had televisions. A mere 80 years ago, few people had cars. A mere 100 years ago we had just invented flight.
Have you noticed a pattern? The world changes for the better. If we followed your philosophy, we would never make any progress. "We're not doing that now" is not an argument that we should not start doing that.
If you are going to be greedy, at least be smart and greedy. You're line of thinking would have kept us literally in the Dark Ages where you would be a peasant. The entire reason Europe got out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance is because the peasants left alive after the Black Death had enough bargaining power over the owner class to demand higher wages. This created the economic boom that brought about every bit of wealth and opportunity you were born into.
Concentrating wealth, especially wealth obtained by zero-sum games and siphoning from other people's productivity, does not create new wealth and does not create a good economy. I really don't understand why this principle is so difficult for you to accept. You would be financially better off if everything I proposed was implemented.
However I'm not understanding WHY he would do that? Say he spends 3 months building this house to sell, but his earnings during that time were $0. Why wouldn't he just work at McDonald's instead?
Hey Dan, have you figured out yet how a building can appreciate? Since you own so much property, that question should be easy for you to answer
« First « Previous Comments 4 - 43 of 77 Next » Last » Search these comments
#housing