I love you people that hate the rich. Your so swollen with greed, and hate that you can't even comprehend how the system works.
Read what I post or don't, I don't care, but please stop throwing out ignorant arguments.
Argument #1: The rich don't pay their fair share.
First off, it's not a fair world, but I won't get into that.
Do you really think Warren Buffet has Billions of dollars sitting somewhere? He doesn't, I'm betting at most he has a few thousand in cash on hand at any given point.
You see, the scrooge McDuck system of hoard, and protect doesn't really work to grow wealth. In the door, jealousy. Money is useless if it just sets in one place. The only way to become rich is to invest the money, and invest the return, and take risks, and worry, and do it all again and again until you have a nervous breakdown from worry over the money.
Argument #2: But he won't miss even half of his billions.
He would, and You would. Like I said above, his money is off at work, not sitting at home drinking a beer. Stop clicking it already, it's just a picture Every single dollar is doing something. I'd bet that a few of those dollars are helping in the place you work at, as they are at mine. So lets say we take a chunk of his money, and lock it up in the Government Coffers. That's a few billion dollars that are no longer working. They are no longer hiring people, or investing in that new company, or even (gasp) going to charity. What do you think happens to all of the industry, and workers that were living off of that investment?
Brad
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IP: Logged
11:55 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Ya like all those billions in Swiss bank accounts.
No I don’t hate the rich, some are friends and I work for others, well when I could work I did.
And just for the record when ever I was working and earned by my sweat and toil over a certain amount I was taxed at the 50% tax rate. So how fair was that?
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Wow..... I never said I hate the rich, I just want them to be treated like everyone else, but apparently money still buys power. As for putting money back into the economy and such, yeah yeah.... I understand that.... I also put money into the economy, as do all of us. I am not arguing that. What I am saying is that tax them fairly, the same as everyone else, or how about tax everyone else the same as the rich. I would love to have a final tax bill of just 16%, like Buffett. Heck if Buffett is telling us he isn't taxed enough, then why not take him up on the offer and fix the problem? Or is special treatment on reserved for the rich? I still find it amazing that we have people who are defending the super rich... heck, they don't need our help, they can buy all the lobbyists/congressmen/presidents they need.
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Ya like all those billions in Swiss bank accounts.
No I don’t hate the rich, some are friends and I work for others, well when I could work I did.
And just for the record when ever I was working and earned by my sweat and toil over a certain amount I was taxed at the 50% tax rate. So how fair was that?
Steve
Apparently to some here, it is the dollar amount you pay that matters, not the fact that the government took 50% of your earnings. Money you could have spent to make your life more livable.
OMG... I am agreeing with Steve!
IP: Logged
12:06 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37820 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
So you don't know where his income is coming from but you are sure his comment is comparing apples to oranges? Even though you state the comparison is meaningless. Then you claim class hatred when the only hatred I see in this thread is by the regular "regurgitators" hating who they consider a rich liberal.
I did not say the comparison was meaningless - I said without knowing how the figures were arrived at, the comparison is meaningless. Either you can't read or your trying to twist my words just to argue.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
As for outsourcing, I would think a huge part of that is companies using lower wages in different countries to maximize profit. Maybe moving the head offices of companies is done to avoid taxation but then that has ethical questions IMO.
Wages are a big part of it, but so is corporate tax rates. What ethical questions are raised by relocating a headquarters?
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Leading by example??? Oh, I think I understand the concept AND I think Buffett is doing an awesome job at that to be honest, his philanthropy is something that I think we can all aspire to.
Your opinion is noted.
IP: Logged
12:32 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by 84fiero123: And just for the record when ever I was working and earned by my sweat and toil over a certain amount I was taxed at the 50% tax rate. So how fair was that?
Steve
Just for the record, what tax rate was that? The last time we had a federal income tax rate of 50% was in 1986, and that applied to income over $171,580 per year. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $337k today, which would put you well above Obama's $250k per year definition of "the wealthiest Americans."
Ya in other fkn countries, wow isn’t that patriotic of them.
Steve
Nobody ever said they had to be patriotic, or where to spend their money. Are you saying that there should be laws governing how they spend, or invest their money?
Brad
IP: Logged
12:47 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Just for the record, what tax rate was that? The last time we had a federal income tax rate of 50% was in 1986, and that applied to income over $171,580 per year. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $337k today, which would put you well above Obama's $250k per year definition of "the wealthiest Americans."
My weekly paycheck with the combined state and federal taxes was at 50% back in the 90’s. When I earned over a grand a week.
See that is just it. What we get taken out of our checks, if you get paid weekly gets taxed at a much higher rate than at tax time where we all get to use all those deductions. But then the rich have way more deductions . Steve ------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 08-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:45 PM
Bullet Member
Posts: 797 From: Douglasville, GA Registered: Jul 2007
Metaphors, to use an overused metaphor, are a double-edged sword: sometimes they clarify, sometimes they confuse. One metaphor responsible for a great deal of confusion is that of wealth as a pie–a metaphor that shows up again and again in debates over income inequality.
“No matter how you slice it, when it comes to income and wealth in America the rich get most of the pie and the rest get the leftovers,”writes a critic of income inequality. “[T]he people who are in the top 1% today earn a larger share of the income pie than the people who were in the top 1% 25 years ago,” notes economist Russ Roberts, a non-critic.
One implication of the pie metaphor is that wealth is a zero-sum game: there is a fixed amount of houses, cars, medicines, etc. to go around, and the moreSteve Jobs gets the less is left for the rest of us. That may have had some plausibility 250 years ago when most wealth was in the form of land. But today, when an iPhone 3G verges on outdated technology, it’s impossible to miss the fact that wealth grows. Roberts puts the point this way: “[T]he pie is not constant. So your well-being can grow even when your share of the pie falls if the pie is getting sufficiently larger.”
Wealth grows. True. But the pie metaphor carries with it another implication, which Roberts doesn’t challenge. It treats wealth as owned by society. We happen to find ourselves in possession of a pie. How did it get here? That’s never made too clear, but it’s here, and now we have to decide how to divide it up fairly.
In accepting the pie metaphor, we concede a moral point that should not be conceded. Wealth does not arise from an amorphous social process; “society” owns no pie.
Wealth is created by, and morally belongs to the individual creator. As Rand observes, since “man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”
Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?
Whatever the complications and intricacies involved, the basic issue is the same whether we’re talking about a remote island or a complex division of labor economy like America’s: a man uses his mind and his existing property (i.e., previously created wealth) to bring new wealth into existence. He doesn’t gobble down an already-baked pie–he produces.
Richard Branson, for instance, got his start selling record albums out of the back of his car. The albums? They were his property. The money he made by selling them? His property. Branson used that money to implement his ideas for making records cheaper, phones more user-friendly, air travel less annoying. He didn’t grab a bigger piece of some socially produced pie any more than Crusoe did: he brought new wealth into existence. (The fact that he worked with other people to create his products doesn’t change the essential issue: each Virgin employee brought wealth into existence as an individual–and was paid accordingly.)
That’s a rather inconvenient truth for critics of income inequality. If, as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert puts it, the “already very wealthy” mysteriously and nefariously “amass an ever increasing share of the nation’s economic benefits,” then spreading the wealth around might seem fair. But what if there is no pie? What if the “economic benefits” Herbert intends to spread around were created, not by “the nation,” but by the “already very wealthy” themselves? Is it any fairer to make them surrender their wealth to us than to make Crusoe surrender his wealth to Friday?
The Bob Herberts of the world, no doubt, would still maintain “yes.” And, to be sure, there is much more to be said about income inequality. But that debate will get nowhere so long as our thinking is obscured by pastry metaphors.
Originally posted by 84fiero123: My weekly paycheck with the combined state and federal taxes was at 50% back in the 90’s. When I earned over a grand a week.
See that is just it. What we get taken out of our checks, if you get paid weekly gets taxed at a much higher rate than at tax time where we all get to use all those deductions. But then the rich have way more deductions . Steve
Ok, but your Federal Income tax wasn't 50%. I understand you had to pay the taxes, but this whole thread has been discussing how much this person pays compared to that person and if you're not talking the same figures, you don't have a valid comparison.
Using tax rates from 2000 (which were pretty much the same from 1993 - 2000), a person with $52,000 of taxable income (i.e. no deductions/after deductions) and filing as Single would be in the 25% tax bracket on their Federal income tax and pay an overall 17.55% in Federal Tax. http://www.moneychimp.com/f...res/tax_brackets.htm
The money taken out of your check should be comparable to what you'll owe in taxes for the year slit up over your checks. If extra is withheld, you get more back at tax time. The amount withheld from your check has no bearing on how much tax you pay - it just affects whether you owe at the end of the year or get a refund.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-17-2011).]
I know we all pay in taxes, but how many people get an enormous chunk back every year?
Some much more than they paid in in the first place. I'm betting after it's all said and done the people in this thread saying the rich need to pay their "fair share" end up paying in even less.
Brad
IP: Logged
05:22 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Ok, but your Federal Income tax wasn't 50%. I understand you had to pay the taxes, but this whole thread has been discussing how much this person pays compared to that person and if you're not talking the same figures, you don't have a valid comparison.
Using tax rates from 2000 (which were pretty much the same from 1993 - 2000), a person with $52,000 of taxable income (i.e. no deductions/after deductions) and filing as Single would be in the 25% tax bracket on their Federal income tax and pay an overall 17.55% in Federal Tax. http://www.moneychimp.com/f...res/tax_brackets.htm
The money taken out of your check should be comparable to what you'll owe in taxes for the year slit up over your checks. If extra is withheld, you get more back at tax time. The amount withheld from your check has no bearing on how much tax you pay - it just affects whether you owe at the end of the year or get a refund.
Problem is that can vary by how you file your deductions when you fill out your W2. See a trick many used to use in construction was to file for 6 dependants while they were working 12/7 days and more. Then later in the year they would change it to single with no dependants.
But then the rich have accountants who do all that for them. They pay less at the end of the year than most middle class Americans do. It should be the same for everyone. No deductions or should I say you pay a set % for how ever much you make no matter what your income. It should be the same for everyone.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
IP: Logged
05:31 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yes, in the current state the economy is in. How many rich CEOs of bailed out companies lost their houses, their families, everything? The middle class bailed them out, but got shafted in the process.
Did *every* rich person get a bailout? Really, *every* one of them?
IP: Logged
05:42 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by jaskispyder: I still find it amazing that we have people who are defending the super rich... heck, they don't need our help, they can buy all the lobbyists/congressmen/presidents they need.
It isn't a question of the rich needing our help. It's a matter of not punishing the successful. I'd like to be there some day, too. I hope you do.
IP: Logged
05:46 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
But then the rich have accountants who do all that for them. They pay less at the end of the year than most middle class Americans do. It should be the same for everyone. No deductions or should I say you pay a set % for how ever much you make no matter what your income. It should be the same for everyone.
Steve
Why would the rich need an accountant to change their exemptions?
IP: Logged
05:59 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Income is profit, pure and simple. Wages, salaries, and commissions are not income, because they are not profit. They are an even exchange for one's labor. Income is wealth for which one has not labored, i.e. equity in a home, lottery winnings, stock dividends, 401K interest, etc.
So, could we somehow get the IRS to accept this definition? Or any definition? Doubtful.
So, you are correct. The current system should be scrapped in favor of the consumption tax you suggested (which is a national sales tax, if I interpret it correctly) or a flat tax.
It would be nice but I wouldn't hold my breath. Having a definition that is deliberately vague means the government can rewrite the rules anytime it suits their agenda.
And by "Government" I mean the corrupt and abusinve officials we elect to serve us but serve themselves instead.
IP: Logged
06:01 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
And as long as we on on the subject, since you have involked the term "the rich" would you please do something no other liberal has ever done in all recorded history...
define "the rich".
IP: Logged
06:05 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Problem is that can vary by how you file your deductions when you fill out your W2. See a trick many used to use in construction was to file for 6 dependants while they were working 12/7 days and more. Then later in the year they would change it to single with no dependants.
But then the rich have accountants who do all that for them. They pay less at the end of the year than most middle class Americans do. It should be the same for everyone. No deductions or should I say you pay a set % for how ever much you make no matter what your income. It should be the same for everyone.
Steve
Changing your deductions doesn't change the amount of tax you pay. It only changes whether you get a refund or not at the end of the year. Your tax bill stays exactly the same. If you choose to have twice as much taken out now and none later, that has NOTHING to do with the government, tax rates, or the rich. I can just about guarantee you the rich don't spend time changing deductions around during the year. In most cases, they'd probably try to have the largest tax bill due at tax time because that means they've had the use of their money all year instead of giving the government an interest free loan.
How much you pay at the end of the year means nothing. If I tell you you'll owe $5000 by next April 15th, you have the option of paying a little each week and owing nothing, a lot each week and getting some back, or not enough each week and owing the difference. The $5000 doesn't change.
If there was a set percentage for everyone, then either lower income people will be paying a LOT more, or the wealthy will be paying a LOT less. If you want to get rid of deductions, be prepared to pay more out of your own pocket and also watch the economy stagnate even farther as home sales plummet even more without the mortgage interest deduction.
IP: Logged
06:12 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by Formula88: If there was a set percentage for everyone, then either lower income people will be paying a LOT more, or the wealthy will be paying a LOT less. If you want to get rid of deductions, be prepared to pay more out of your own pocket and also watch the economy stagnate even farther as home sales plummet even more without the mortgage interest deduction.
Sounds good, lets try it and see. How about a straight 25% tax for everyone, no deductions. As for the home sales plummeting... ah.... have you watched the news for the past 3 years?
BTW, I would advocate a national sales tax and no income tax.
IP: Logged
09:50 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
And as long as we on on the subject, since you have involked the term "the rich" would you please do something no other liberal has ever done in all recorded history...
define "the rich".
I am not supporting liberals, but conservatives have defined rich either. BTW, originally this article was about the super rich... billionaires. I define those guys as "rich"
IP: Logged
09:51 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Yes I have, and I mean plummeting from the CURRENT prices.
I have no problem with that. It is a fact that houses are over priced and really, some people can not afford them. That is just the reality of it. In my neighborhood we have a house that needs total renovation and they want $100K. The house, if not in our neighborhood, would be selling for about $30K. The house is 900 sq ft, on a concrete slab, multiple little additions, not maintained, etc.... overpriced, but that is the fault of the realtors. We joke about my neighborhood, as people must think there is gold in the dirt, as they ASK a small fortune for the houses and they sit and sit... until someone new to the area buys it and discovers they got taken. Happens a lot around here. But again, thanks to the realtors who jack up the prices to make profits and screw the new buyers.
IP: Logged
09:02 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I have no problem with that. It is a fact that houses are over priced and really, some people can not afford them. That is just the reality of it. In my neighborhood we have a house that needs total renovation and they want $100K. The house, if not in our neighborhood, would be selling for about $30K. The house is 900 sq ft, on a concrete slab, multiple little additions, not maintained, etc.... overpriced, but that is the fault of the realtors. We joke about my neighborhood, as people must think there is gold in the dirt, as they ASK a small fortune for the houses and they sit and sit... until someone new to the area buys it and discovers they got taken. Happens a lot around here. But again, thanks to the realtors who jack up the prices to make profits and screw the new buyers.
Oh, geez.
REALTORS jack up prices? A realtor can put whatever price they want on a property. If nobody wants to pay that price, the house will sit. The house will continue to sit until the price is set to wherever a buyer is willing to pay. I know this first hand, having held two properties that wouldn't sell, and we had to adjust the price several times.
IP: Logged
11:04 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
REALTORS jack up prices? A realtor can put whatever price they want on a property. If nobody wants to pay that price, the house will sit. The house will continue to sit until the price is set to wherever a buyer is willing to pay. I know this first hand, having held two properties that wouldn't sell, and we had to adjust the price several times.
Did you set your own price, or did you listen to the realtor? If you really think that realtors don't jack up prices, then wtf? It is so obvious, you can't miss it.
I am editing this to illustrate my point.... Realtor calls appraiser (or you do), the appraiser looks at what houses in the area have sold for. The Appraiser finds reasons your home should be priced at $XXXX, which is a little higher, as this will give the relator a bump in commission (and the owner will get more money). The realtor then remembers this appraiser and uses them again, or recommends them. The appraiser gets more work the realtor get a higher commission. BTW, I have a friend who is an appraiser and she said we can appraise a house how ever they want, within the area they are selling houses. And if need be, they expand the area to pick out higher priced homes. Want more proof, my previous home was appraised at X amount, the realtor then said I should sell it for $30K more. It was already the most expensive home in the area and knowing the area was going to crap, there is no way that anyone would pay $30K more than X, or I would have to sit on the house for a year or two to maybe get that price (markets crashed within months afterwards). I sold it for what the appraiser said it was worth (well within a few thousand). I sold it within a week. No double mortgage payments, no extra taxes, no nothing. The realtor was an idiot and I won't be using one again. He wanted a higher commission and he didn't care if the house sat on the market, while I paid monthly mortgage payments and utilities. That is just one example. As I said, in my area, houses are WAY over priced. There was no slump in the markets here. There should have been, but the realtors immediately price the houses high and wait for them to come down. I have seen houses sit for YEARS because of the high asking price. It isn't the owners, they have moved out and have a new home. The relator just tells them to wait it out. Realtors also know houses in the area, and know the history. Even a good house inspector won't know some of these issues, yet, they sell the house and smile because they know you were screwed over. More proof? Relator new a cabin didn't have a septic field, only a tank, and AFTER the sale was completed, they let it be known that they though the buyer knew it and it even said "spetic" on the disclosure agreement. The realtor knew that it would have reduced the selling price and the commission. Yeah... realtors control the prices of homes, to think so is just ignoring the obvious.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-18-2011).]
I am not supporting liberals, but conservatives have defined rich either. BTW, originally this article was about the super rich... billionaires. I define those guys as "rich"
I assume you meant to type "conservatives "haven't" defined...' I'm conservative and I have defined "rich"
It's anyone making or having more than the person who is making the comparison--and it always has been.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:31 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
And as long as we on on the subject, since you have involked the term "the rich" would you please do something no other liberal has ever done in all recorded history...
define "the rich".
Rich can be defined many ways by many different people in many different areas of the wealth spectrum.
My descriptions.
Monetarily, Rich, having accumulated millions or making millions of dollars a year net income.
Philosophically, Rich, someone who has accumulated many friends and family who are there for you and you are there for them.
So I guess in some ways I am rich, philosophically anyway. But then that doesn’t pay the bills. It does make me happy, and isn’t that all that really matters?
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
IP: Logged
11:43 AM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Did you set your own price, or did you listen to the realtor? If you really think that realtors don't jack up prices, then wtf? It is so obvious, you can't miss it.
Who does a Realtor work for? The Realtor works for the SELLER, so it's the job to get the best price possible for the house. It makes them more money and it makes the seller more money. A Buyer's Agent (who may also be a licensed Realtor) works for the Buyer and it's their job to get the house for the least price possible.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Want more proof, my previous home was appraised at X amount, the realtor then said I should sell it for $30K more. It was already the most expensive home in the area and knowing the area was going to crap, there is no way that anyone would pay $30K more than X, or I would have to sit on the house for a year or two to maybe get that price (markets crashed within months afterwards). I sold it for what the appraiser said it was worth (well within a few thousand).
But you said the Realtor sets the prices. Now you're saying YOU decided to sell the house for what it was appraised, as if it was YOUR decision all along.
IP: Logged
12:28 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Monetarily, Rich, having accumulated millions or making millions of dollars a year net income.
That seems like a reasonable definition. Good luck getting the government to agree, though. Obama defines rich, or as he calls it "the wealthiest Americans" as anyone who makes $250,000 a year income.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:33 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Monetarily, Rich, having accumulated millions or making millions of dollars a year net income.
Philosophically, Rich, someone who has accumulated many friends and family who are there for you and you are there for them.
OK, I have to agree with you on the Philosophical definition.
However, the Monetary definition doesn't work.
For example, what if you are a charity making millions of dollars per year? Or what about someone who makes $2 million per year who lives in Enid, Oklahoma versus someone who makes $2 million per year living in Manhattan. Should they be taxed equally based on income alone? What if the guy in Manhattan inherited his millions or is earning them on a trust fund versus the guy in Oklahoma who built a business from scratch and employs 45 people? How about the guy in Enid gives 10% to charity each year, invests 50% in new businesses that manufacture products, puts 20% towards his kids college funds, and lives on 30% after taxes while the guy in Manhattan gives nothing to charity, goes to cocktail parties for the DNC and talks about the plight of the poor while investing in nothing more than a safe treasury fund, but in nothing that would mean real risk or create one job, so as to not let his gravy train run dry, could care less about his kids and his ex wife, and blows 80% of his money on yachts, fast cars, whores, and acting superior to people who actually work for a living? Just think of John Edwards!
I could go on..the point being, is basing taxes solely on the income of a person or an organization fair? Is it the best way to motivate people to produce more, invest more, and save more, and buy locally made products and services? Should one man's income be interpreted the same as another man's income?
But you said the Realtor sets the prices. Now you're saying YOU decided to sell the house for what it was appraised, as if it was YOUR decision all along.
Yes, I didn't let the realtor try to artificially inflate the price of the house, at my expense (mortgage payments, insurance, utilities). Sigh... Why are people so determined to try to twist words around here?
Want another example... $1.5M house down the street. It has been for sale for YEARS and last I heard the price was down to $900K. Hmm, how many tax payments, utilities, mortgage payments, etc.... does it take to realize the house was over priced. The realtor was looking at 7% of $1.5M.... and the market wouldn't accept that high amount. Now, they could have been lucky and found an idiot to buy it. But in general, realtors hope people buy houses at a higher price, which is a good thing, but they don't seem to be concerned with pricing the average house out of range of the general family. I have yet to find a poor realtor, even in this market.
There is a radio commercial playing here that makes me yell at the radio every time it's on.
Loosely quoted, it says that you may be selling your 100k house for 10% under cost, but you can then buy a 200k house for 10% under cost, A HUGE SAVINGS!
Spending is not saving in any context. And especially if you already have an item that is working for you, and you "upgrade".
Years ago people purchased a house when they got married, and lived in that same house until they died. What happened? I understand people using it as an investment, but come on, everyone is trying to do that.
Brad
IP: Logged
02:26 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
There is a radio commercial playing here that makes me yell at the radio every time it's on.
Loosely quoted, it says that you may be selling your 100k house for 10% under cost, but you can then buy a 200k house for 10% under cost, A HUGE SAVINGS!
Spending is not saving in any context. And especially if you already have an item that is working for you, and you "upgrade".
Years ago people purchased a house when they got married, and lived in that same house until they died. What happened? I understand people using it as an investment, but come on, everyone is trying to do that.
Brad
Flip this house. Buy it cheap, fix it as cheap/quick as possible, ask a lot of money.
IP: Logged
02:39 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Yes, I didn't let the realtor try to artificially inflate the price of the house, at my expense (mortgage payments, insurance, utilities). Sigh... Why are people so determined to try to twist words around here?
I'm not twisting your words. You first say Realtors jack up the prices, and then you said you set the price on your house, regardless of what the Realtor said. The point being a Realtor may SUGGEST you raise your price, but you as the seller are the one who actually sets the price.
As for Realtors and appraisers working together, that's not uncommon, but they'll frequently get the house appraised for more than it's worth so the buyer can get financing easier. If it's a $200k house and you want to finance $200k, you're gonna have trouble, but if it's appraised for $250k, you and the Realtor can cook the books to make it look like you are paying $250k, but only financing $200k.
Either way, the Realtor can't do anything without the seller's consent. Hiding stuff and covering known flaws should be in violation of disclosure laws and would be illegal. Any illegal activity by any party should be prosecuted.
Oh, geez.
