Tiberius Posted August 21 Author Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: Have you ever considered taking a course in economics? It will make this stuff a lot easier to understand. I have, actually You are ignorant, and it shows
Tenhigh Posted August 21 Posted August 21 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: I have, actually You are ignorant, and it shows For sure I am about some things maybe, but not economics. Especially the simple stuff like this. Look, if you still have the textbooks from your economics courses, go back and take a look at the impact that policies like this giveaway and price fixing has on markets. It's pretty straightforward. 3
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 21 Posted August 21 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: Not seen the point brought up here, but..... Inflated valuations will see inflated appraisals, which are what property taxes are based on. Those of us who did this the right way will pay, year after year, in increased property taxes. Simply an incredibly stupid idea. Yup. When we bought our house 20+ years ago the property taxes were $4,200. Now they're slightly north of $14K. It's our biggest monthly budget expense item and it consumes an ever-large percentage of our income every year. People voice disapproval of the Harris idea to tax unrealized capital gains but we already have a wealth tax like that and its called property taxes. 4
Tiberius Posted August 21 Author Posted August 21 2 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: For sure I am about some things maybe, but not economics. Especially the simple stuff like this. Look, if you still have the textbooks from your economics courses, go back and take a look at the impact that policies like this giveaway and price fixing has on markets. It's pretty straightforward. Does more money chasing fewer houses mean more houses get built? You understand supply and demand, right? 1
Irv Posted August 21 Posted August 21 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I have, actually You are ignorant, and it shows Such an ignorant response. The 2008 housing collapse was a direct result of Clinton policies mandating loans to unqualified borrowers. What a mess. 2
Roundybout Posted August 21 Posted August 21 (edited) 7 hours ago, letsgoteam said: Again, why am I getting punished for my family doing things on our own and pulling up our own boot straps (by sacrificing & saving everything ourselves and buying our house)? So now I have to help pay for other people's houses? You already do this via Section 8 subsidies. But beyond that, there’s already such a gigantic shortage of housing that it’s near impossible to “pull yourself up” to buy a home. Boomers aren’t leaving their houses and are living longer. there’s no supply. 34 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The most recent foray into NIMBYism on a national, political level involved immigrants being removed from Martha’s Vineyard. I haven’t read any accounts of Barrack and Michelle offering up some of the land at their disposal but it’s possible. Barrack and Michelle own multiple residences, JB owns oceanfront property and a personal residence in Delaware, and according to one article, Harris has several properties in places like San Francisco, Brentwood and DC. Who would you anticipate partners with the government first, cedes/sells some land for a couple of those high rise Lego condos you believe are the future? This doesn’t make any sense. All they’re proposing is to reduce restrictions on development, especially environmental review acts like CEQR which can add years to development. We don’t need or want high rise “LEGO condos.” We just have to allow more density within existing cities, the way it was before strict Euclidean zoning regulations. We do this by allowing developers more freedom to build. Edited August 21 by Roundybout 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 21 Posted August 21 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Does more money chasing fewer houses mean more houses get built? You understand supply and demand, right? Its a dynamic situation. You need to consider the supply/demand situation with lots of inputs. Lumber for example. And in the short-term supply is constrained by available capacity. In the longer-term capacity can be added assuming resources are available to do so. And if the demand on available capacity exceeds supply that generally results in price increases. Along with that there's a multitude of regulatory, zoning, and environmental rules and regulations that must be considered when building residential housing. And these vary greatly from place to place. There isn't a national housing market, its 100's of local markets unique to themselves so its hard for me to imagine a uniform federal program is going to address everything in an effective manner without a lots of various configurations of the program based on the local market. And in local market where the average cost of a home far exceeds the national average price an extra $25K isn't going to make much difference. 1
Irv Posted August 21 Posted August 21 How come none of these idiot Democrats can tell us how they will pay for this? What a mess. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 21 Posted August 21 9 minutes ago, Irv said: How come none of these idiot Democrats can tell us how they will pay for this? What a mess. They're going to pass legislation to tax registered democrats an extra $1,000 each to fund the program. Obviously, I'm joking. But you can be sure they won't be asking any of their voting constituents to pay a nickel. They might pull one of those smoke and mirrors self-funding fables that the program will fund itself by facilitating more taxable transactions in the housing market that will generate revenue to cover the program costs plus any administration fees for the bureaucracy of political patronage jobs they'll build around it. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 21 Posted August 21 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: You already do this via Section 8 subsidies. But beyond that, there’s already such a gigantic shortage of housing that it’s near impossible to “pull yourself up” to buy a home. Boomers aren’t leaving their houses and are living longer. there’s no supply. This doesn’t make any sense. All they’re proposing is to reduce restrictions on development, especially environmental review acts like CEQR which can add years to development. We don’t need or want high rise “LEGO condos.” We just have to allow more density within existing cities, the way it was before strict Euclidean zoning regulations. We do this by allowing developers more freedom to build. Round-Dude, you sent a tweet that sung the praises of Barrack moving away from a Not In My Backyard mentality. I asked about backyards of the people making the statements, and you're saying I'm not making sense? I was unfamiliar with the phrase "Euclidean Zoning" and did a quick check of the web. I can see how it meshes with your pod city goal and the movement away from safe home spaces in suburbs and towns across the country. It also leads me back to the NIMBY question earlier--who challenges the local regulations to increase density for the greater good--Barrack, Biden or Harris? Thanks for the reference on the zoning. I'll read up on that. 2
T master Posted August 21 Posted August 21 19 hours ago, billsfan_34 said: Actually every seller will just sell higher. The money will only inflate the market even more while at the same time picking the pockets of tax payers. Exactly my point . The housing market is not only inflationary & supply and demand based in part but i feel the realtors greed has much more to do with it than other factors ! I saw it in Fl. before 08 when people were moving to Fl. in droves & i thought these price increases can't continue the way they are going and sure enough they didn't and i feel the exact same thing will happen again . I don't know how a young married couple can afford a home today at prices starting at or near $350 k with out the wages having to be stupid high in order to live a relatively comfortable life and a big part is to blame on the realtors IMHO . 1 2
billsfan_34 Posted August 21 Posted August 21 2 hours ago, T master said: Exactly my point . The housing market is not only inflationary & supply and demand based in part but i feel the realtors greed has much more to do with it than other factors ! I saw it in Fl. before 08 when people were moving to Fl. in droves & i thought these price increases can't continue the way they are going and sure enough they didn't and i feel the exact same thing will happen again . I don't know how a young married couple can afford a home today at prices starting at or near $350 k with out the wages having to be stupid high in order to live a relatively comfortable life and a big part is to blame on the realtors IMHO . Wall street greed but totally in agreement!!! 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: So home sellers will get more money! That's helping the middle class right there 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: So home sellers will get more money! That's helping the middle class right there Your speaking at a micro level. There’s no help for you. 1
Doc Posted August 21 Posted August 21 14 hours ago, Doc Brown said: She isn't the president. The only power the Vice President has is to break ties in the Senate. It's amazing how easy it is to answer that and it's what the Harris campaign is counting on. You mean stupidity? 1
Doc Brown Posted August 21 Posted August 21 9 minutes ago, Doc said: You mean stupidity? No because it's such an odd government position that none of know how much influence she had in the administration. Vice president is such an odd role. All I know she's farther to the left than Biden so no thanks. 2
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Posted August 21 6 hours ago, Roundybout said: This doesn’t make any sense. All they’re proposing is to reduce restrictions on development, especially environmental review acts like CEQR which can add years to development. They actually stated to reduce and override local and state regulations to make it happen. Devil is in the details. 1
Doc Posted August 21 Posted August 21 12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No because it's such an odd government position that none of know how much influence she had in the administration. Vice president is such an odd role. All I know she's farther to the left than Biden so no thanks. It was touted as the "Biden-Harris Administration" from the beginning. It was never the "Trump-Pence Administration" or the "Obama-Biden Administration." She owns the bad policies. But OK, you say she had no say in anything. That's not a great calling card for her. What are her qualifications then? She was rated the worst VP ever and they were looking to replace her on the ticket. And now she's the Dem nominee for President. Why not have her assume those duties now and attempt to fix things instead of letting people suffer for another 5 months? These are all questions anyone sane would ask. 2
Doc Brown Posted August 21 Posted August 21 10 minutes ago, Doc said: It was touted as the "Biden-Harris Administration" from the beginning. It was never the "Trump-Pence Administration" or the "Obama-Biden Administration." She owns the bad policies. But OK, you say she had no say in anything. That's not a great calling card for her. What are her qualifications then? She was rated the worst VP ever and they were looking to replace her on the ticket. And now she's the Dem nominee for President. Why not have her assume those duties now and attempt to fix things instead of letting people suffer for another 5 months? These are all questions anyone sane would ask. You're putting words in my mouth as I didn't say she had no say in anything. I just don't know if she was the driving force of the administration or Biden just ignored her (pry somewhere in-between). She has no qualifications. As far as letting people suffer for another five months none of her proposals would get by a GOP majority House.
Tiberius Posted August 21 Author Posted August 21 6 hours ago, Irv said: How come none of these idiot Democrats can tell us how they will pay for this? What a mess. Mexico will pay for it 2
Doc Posted August 21 Posted August 21 2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: You're putting words in my mouth as I didn't say she had no say in anything. I just don't know if she was the driving force of the administration or Biden just ignored her (pry somewhere in-between). She has no qualifications. As far as letting people suffer for another five months none of her proposals would get by a GOP majority House. Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in you, per se. I'm talking about a person who looks at what she's done or not done while VP. Either she was involved in the bad policy or totally uninvolved and neither is a good look. Neither is saying "well I can't do anything for 5 months even though I'm in power now and being tapped to be President." 2
Doc Brown Posted August 21 Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in you, per se. I'm talking about a person who looks at what she's done or not done while VP. Either she was involved in the bad policy or totally uninvolved and neither is a good look. Neither is saying "well I can't do anything for 5 months even though I'm in power now and being tapped to be President." I assume part of her sales pitch will be to elect Democrats across the country so I can implement these horrible policies.
Recommended Posts