« First « Previous Comments 148 - 187 of 318 Next » Last » Search these comments
Wall street is disappointed with size of president's stimulus package:
Stocks End Rough Week With Modest Drop
Wall Street Caps Rough Week With Modest Decline As Stimulus Plan Fails Draws Little Reaction
NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street ended a painful week with another decline Friday as skittish investors unable to hold on to much optimism about the economy drew little comfort from President Bush's stimulus plan.
The day's trading reflected how fractious Wall Street has been in the new year. Investors pulled back from a big early advance, with the major indexes trading mixed as Bush began to speak. By the time the president finished announcing a plan for about $145 billion worth of tax relief, the indexes were well into negative territory.
"It's disappointed in the size of the economic growth package. Wall Street's showing its displeasure," said Kim Caughey, equity research analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group in Pittsburgh. "Honestly, I think the institutional investors understand the limits to the government's ability to enact economic change."
I will celebrate when DOW drops below 12,000:
I think DOW will see 15000. But not before it hits 7500.
NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE
Wow, DOW at 7500. I presume that would mean oil, housing, and products will all be cheap.
So, with such a "wealth effect" created by people spending so much less on necessities free up enough discressionary spending to run the DOW to 15,000?
Or are you thinking recession to 7500, then printing press to 15,000?
I am hoping for deflation caused by the credit contraction. Since credit seemed to have the same effect as money recently, a cutback in credit may act just like a contraction in the money supply (deflation by definition).
I will celebrate when DOW drops below 12,000:
I will celebrate when down payments of at least 25% become mandatory.
Wow, DOW at 7500. I presume that would mean oil, housing, and products will all be cheap.
Historically, it is not uncommon for the DOW to "cost" only a few ounces of gold.
I think oil price will come down.
So, with such a “wealth effect†created by people spending so much less on necessities free up enough discressionary spending to run the DOW to 15,000?
I did not state a time frame. Perhaps DOW 15000 will happen within the next 200 years?
>> I will celebrate when down payments of at least 25% become mandatory.
This is an impossible dream. If this is true then Wall Street earnings will fall dramatically. Basically banks print money to charge interest. Now if you limit credit to REAL SAVINGS (25% down payment) then wall street's source of income and bonus will disappear. Basically they want more and more of ZERO DOWN types ....
Headset,
That's a point I can't hear enough of! Imagine, your house payment is no more than 3-5x income and you're *not pouring 60%+ of your paycheck into a McHacienda?
But NO!
must__support__housing__prices.... ugh.. and__spending..
Both price control (in China) and "recession aversion" (here) will fail miserably.
I did not state a time frame. Perhaps DOW 15000 will happen within the next 200 years?
Are you a budding politician?
I will celebrate when down payments of at least 25% become mandatory.
If you do run for office, I (and possibly StuckInBA) will vote for you if you support such a law. This law would be more benificial than all the grandstanding done on "payday lending."
O.K, you get NO MID and if you want to sell your home without cap. gains you may do so (after TEN years!)
STILL... want to enter a bidding war?
"I" for one don't think there's anything inherently evil w/ Zero Down loans. If that, in and of itself were the sole determining factor I should have been able to auction my zero down VA loan to the highest bidder?
I'd say the 20% - 25% down payment was a good idea because not only was it decent protection against ending up "underwater" but it also filtered through only those who COULD save.
I've done shit jobs, really low menial stuff, but even on those jobs now I realize, I could have saved money. It may have involved asking the supermarket for old veggies "for my rabbit" and some odd jobs on the side, scrounging dumpsters a lot more than I did, but even on a shit job it's possible to save. So, generally "low income" is not a cover-all excuse to not be a saver. It's more of a mindset, you're a saver or you're not, and in the US people are brainwashed to not be savers but they can break out of the brainwashing.
“I†for one don’t think there’s anything inherently evil w/ Zero Down loans. If that, in and of itself were the sole determining factor I should have been able to auction my zero down VA loan to the highest bidder?
If the market allows zero down loans, I don't see any problem. Just don't use my tax dollars to mitigate risks stemming from such loans. :)
O.K, you get NO MID and if you want to sell your home without cap. gains you may do so (after TEN years!)
That, along with no gov backing of low/no down loans, would be the best "Affordable Housing" policy.
>> So, generally “low income†is not a cover-all excuse to not be a saver. It’s more of a mindset, you’re a saver or you’re not, and in the US people are brainwashed to not be savers but they can break out of the brainwashing.
Banks and Government works hand in hand to create anti saving mentality. It is a rational response of masses to NOT TO SAVE. SAVERS ARE LOSERS. Please watch this video:
Money as Debt : Animated Video by Paul Grignon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
That, along with no gov backing of low/no down loans, would be the best “Affordable Housing†policy.
There should be no government backing of ANY loan.
Well, to be truthful there is a certain amount of value in having a VA "assumable" loan. But only b/c it made the transaction smoother.
Well, to be truthful there is a certain amount of value in having a VA “assumable†loan.
VA is different because it is a perk for deserving soldiers.
@Headset,
Exactly. (Like realtors are going to tell first time buyers the "tax benefits" of owning a home aren't already "baked-in" to the price)?
If the market allows zero down loans, I don’t see any problem.
Those of us old enough to have tried to buy houses in the 80's or earlier know the phrase "Nothing Down, Banker's Frown." Without a VA or FHA loan, you had to cough up 20% down for a owner occupied home and 50% for an investment property. Plus, the banks wanted you to state the source of the down payment and would not allow the downpayment to be borrowed. I do not think the market will support zero down without gov backing. Often enough, gov backing just raised prices and planted the seeds of future forclosures.
How about un-deserving sailors?
I had a Division Officer that swore I "had my OWN Navy" (as clearly I wasn't part of their's) :)
Exactly. (Like realtors are going to tell first time buyers the “tax benefits†of owning a home aren’t already “baked-in†to the price)?
Even worse. For many first time buyers in "fly over land" the MID did not quit add up to the Standard Deduction.
Underserving sailors? I can think of many things sailors deserve. None printable.
it was very difficult to explain to my fatherinlaw that one of the reasons we didn't want to buy a bigger house in a more expensive area was that the much higher property tax wasn't deductible because in my situation I have to pay AMT.
-He didn't know what AMT was
-He didn't believe me
-He thinks I'm an idiot
So not only do most people think they are increasing their tax deductions by paying interest, they also assume all the taxes are deductible, no matter their amt situation!
NOT INVESTMENT or TAX ADVICE! I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL FINANCE PERSON!!
revenge,
Outstanding! I'm o.k w/ the first 2 but #3 gets my goat. And I suppose deductions fade out above ____ anyway? Not to "one better" you but you'd be surprised how many Oregonians honestly believe that by paying more in property tax they're somehow getting over on the fed's.
It would be funny if it wasn't so, so.. stupid.
Banknotes, when they are printed, are considered the property of the Central Bank. They are not given to the State to spend, but are brought into circulation against a corresponding debt. Anyone wanting some of those notes to spend, has to "buy" them by giving up some of their credit. And in any case, most of the money in circulation (more than 90%) is not banknotes but "credit".
When you go to your bank asking for money, the loan you get is created right there in your bank. The "money" consists of figures on your bank account, and it can be spent writing checks, giving an order to transfer or drawing the cash. Banks only have to have a small percentage of their loaned-out money actually available. The rest can be paid out just by moving some figures from one account to another. The important thing to know: Money is created just by inserting some numbers into a computer.
I am hoping for deflation caused by the credit contraction.
CR just had a post noting that writedowns hit $100 billion. It is rather hard to comprehend that this amount of money has been vaporized. Interesting to note that the "stimulus" is around this amount...
Hey, revengeofaone, have some sympathy for the guy. Remember the first time some told you that there are two different tax codes, you have to do your taxes twice, and pay the higher of the two amounts. It was kinda like, you're joking right.... and then, uhhh, does this mean my refund is in jeopardy?
@DinOr, you'll like this one. At socketsite there is a commercial landlord who wants to get out of the business. The plan is to 1031 exchange into SFH rentals, then live in each serially for two years to claim The Exemption. Nice way to aviod cap. gains and CA taxes...
AND... we live in a society where abusing the tax code is OBVIOUSLY a non-issue! (At least where this is concerned) I may have mentioned I spoke w/ one of the economists in the capitol and he said there are rumblings in DC regarding this brand of BS.
MAN UP people!
I mean what would possess a person to think this was acceptable to the degree it could be openly discussed like that in public? I guess this is like getting busted for smoking a joint at Woodstock huh?
Interesting plan EB, I suspect that the gains earned in 1031s don't disappear, otherwise everyone would do it. If I am wrong then it is a brilliant plan except for the one main reason that I didn't do 1031s. If you want to get out of a declining market it is a poor strategy to trade one asset for another.
It wasn't fun paying on the gains but the rate was so low that I've already made back all the taxes just by paying off my current home, and I earn 10% on the money through my investment. Basically after 2 and a half years you've made the money back if you do it right, look at what your friend has to go through just to avoid the tax. Not worth it in my opinion.
We must eliminate the capital gains tax. It is distorting the market.
Believe it or not, I believe the capital gains tax is one of the fairest taxes if you must have taxes.
Pot house on sale?
37168 Aleppo Dr, Union City, CA
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/rfs/543089925.html
Property owner is Yile Xu
A search with that name comes up with these news
http://www.themoneyblogs.com/socalbubble/my.blog/cali-real-estate-agents-love-their-pot-houses.html
http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=24195
Believe it or not, I believe the capital gains tax is one of the fairest taxes if you must have taxes.
Huh?
I think sales tax is the fairest tax.
Of course you would. That is one of the most regressive taxes. It is a horrible burden on the poor.
Of course you would. That is one of the most regressive taxes. It is a horrible burden on the poor.
We do not charge sales tax to many essential items (like food and rent) anyway. I do not know how it is a burden on the poor.
On the other hand, many well-to-do families spend 100%+ of their incomes.
« First « Previous Comments 148 - 187 of 318 Next » Last » Search these comments
Given the record level of empty housing, rents seem to be falling in most parts of the country.
But my own rent went up for the first time in 5 years recently. Though it's still lower than it was when I first moved in during the dot-com bubble. I got a good rent reduction after the crash.
Rents should respond basically to employment and salary levels, but I don't see employment or salaries improving much around me in the SF Bay Area.
Any idea what's going on? Sometimes I suspect that the press writes about rising rent, and then landlords actually do raise it just because they think they can.
Patrick
#housing