Rich Don't Pay Most of the Taxes (They Pay All of Them); About the "Almost Ric
invite response
2013 Dec 11, 8:01am 27,895 views 142 comments
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 102 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
But when you think of the 1% who are made out to be the super-rich who are not paying their share, does my situation really strike you as the same as Mitt Romney, for example? He pays a much lower percentage in taxes than we do. We're progressive to a certain point (and type) of income... Then, it goes the other way.
You and I pay higher rates % on Salary earned..
Romney has no Salary! He has no employers to be paid from !
He isnt on anyone payroll... So he doesnt pay a higher rate...
One day as you, I and other retire or no longer employed.. WE will
be paying a lower rates... you will be living off savings ! or least that
is the plan for many!
This is not to say bandit capitalists like Romney shouldn't be paying penalty tax rates of ~50%. If we doubled their rate to 48% that'd yield another $400B or so. We could use the money to get the deficit under more control.
Double on what ? salary, savings, dividends, assets ?
It's my thesis if we lowered taxes on the top 5%, Irvine prices would just rise to take the tax cuts, since each household -- at every level of the 'property ladder' -- takes their after-tax income and bids up the cost of housing with it.
The money in taxpayer pockets would go to all the things that people want to buy. Your thesis essentially asserts that people spend all their money on house payment, and don't care about other aspects of their lives at all.
That's OK for you, since you've locked in your housing costs, but that's the deal for the next generation.
No, it is not. See above.
This is not to say bandit capitalists like Romney shouldn't be paying penalty tax rates of ~50%. If we doubled their rate to 48% that'd yield another $400B or so. We could use the money to get the deficit under more control.
No. The deficit is the result of spending. The more taxes collected, the more the government budgets would be larded up with long-term contracts to cronies, resulting in even more precarious budgetary problems down the road.
Bellingham Bill
2013 Dec 13, 2:40pm
The money in taxpayer pockets would go to all the things that people want to buy. Your thesis essentially asserts that people spend all their money on house payment, and don't care about other aspects of their lives at all.
They do, but housing is a very high priority.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=q0w
real per-capita (25-54) housing costs.
(this is spot-on with my own experience; btw, what I rented for $700 in 1991 ($1100 in 2012 money) rents for $1800 today, a 1.6X increase in real terms).
The more taxes collected, the more the government budgets would be larded up with long-term contracts to cronies, resulting in even more precarious budgetary problems down the road
Sure, if we elect another chucklehead like Reagan or "W".
tatupu70
2013 Dec 13, 9:38pm
We are not talking about a single guy living in his mom's basement while being paid to make online posts
Thanks for clearing that up.
Doctors are supposed to be one of the admired professions.
They still are.
5k/mo is barely enough to put one kid through private high school or college.
And if you choose to live in Irvine, you can only buy a Lamborghini once every few years. I guess that's a sacrifice you have to make.
No, just showing housing has totally outraced inflation, demonstrating my point that it's not like other expenses.
No, all you have shown is that the official "inflation" under-states some components of expenditure in real life, and housing seems to be one of them. If you graph medical expense or education expense, both would have out-raced "inflation" even more. Heck, even the cost of real food / organic food would have out-raced "inflation." In the case of housing, I'm not even sure if it is our-racing inflation: the graph you have is not adjusted for quality or quantity consumed. People live in much bigger houses today than they were in 1950's. By your way of graphing, even people's expenditure on electronics goods would have out-raced "inflation" . . . and we know electronic goods prices have definitely deflated in the last half century!
When households started making 2 incomes -- and banks started lending against that higher household income -- housing prices skyrocketed.
Along with the prices for many other items, including medicine, education and real food (organic food, but industrially produced substitutes). The average houses also got much bigger with more amenities during that time (the graph is not just housing but also utility, which is a reflection of energy cost and electricity/gas monopoly surcharge "distribution fee"), unlike education getting worse and real food staying more or less the same.
Other goods aren't in such short supply and not so critical to survival and quality of life as housing. No good is, really, since housing even determines how well your kids grow up etc.
Do you want to try giving up food or medicine? As for kids, upper middle class bidding up prices for houses in good neighborhoods is only a reflection that high taxes and inflationary transfers have already deprived them the capacity to send kids to private schools away from home.
As for the partisanship talking about the national fisc, this is because the last 4 Democratic presidents have been rather serious about paying for government, while "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is the Republican belief.
It's a two sides of the same scam. Both deficit spending and raising taxes increase the Economic Rent collected by the privileged at the expense of the rest of the society, at gun point. Two wings of the same political party.
5k/mo is barely enough to put one kid through private high school or college.
And if you choose to live in Irvine, you can only buy a Lamborghini once every few years. I guess that's a sacrifice you have to make.
We are not talking about Lamborghinis, we are talking about sending kids to a good quality private school, just like the good doctor himself probably had when he was young. If the good doctor and his family can not afford to live in Irvine, who should be able to? Only government bureaucrats, banksters and other gang-bangers in and out of bureaucratic costumes?
Y
2013 Dec 13, 10:20pm
you bring this on yourself by living in high mortgage districts to exist in a tiny dump. Move to stockton and quadruple your disposable income.
Yes, this is California, the land of insane house prices. Irvine doesn't have much 4-bed product under $1m (and that's a tiny dump). I'm not saying that we're poor. But when you think of the 1% who are made out to be the super-rich who are not paying their share, does my situation really strike you as the same as Mitt Romney, for example?
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 12:03am
We are not talking about Lamborghinis, we are talking about sending kids to a good quality private school
No. I'm talking about Lamborghinis and you were talking about private schools.
just like the good doctor himself probably had when he was young.
Really? All Drs. went to private schools? Please tell me more.
If the good doctor and his family can not afford to live in Irvine, who should be able to?
The good Dr and his family clearly can very comfortably afford to live in Irvine. They have more $$ left AFTER taxes, housing (in Irvine no less), and health care than what the median family has BEFORE all expenses. I think they have no problem being able to afford living in Irvine.. Don't you agree?
bdrasin
2013 Dec 14, 12:49am
VERY dishonest.
From the article: "...when it comes to individual income taxes". So that's NOT considering payroll/social security taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc.
If 80% of payroll taxes come from the bottom 50%, and I make a headline "Rich don't pay most of the taxes - 80% of taxes come from the bottom 50%", you'd call me a liar because I'm only considering one part of the overall tax structure and then claiming that it is true of taxes overall. What this article, and the O.P. has done, is just as dishonest.
$5k/mo ain't bad! Your non-shelter related bills shouldn't amount to more than half that. That leaves you with at least $30k/yr
I agree--$5K/month after taxes, housing, health care is a LOT. If someone is crying about that, they need to have their head examined.
You must not have children. 5k won't spend you very far these days. Its by no means filthy rich
No. I'm talking about Lamborghinis and you were talking about private schools.
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
Really? All Drs. went to private schools? Please tell me more.
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
The good Dr and his family clearly can very comfortably afford to live in Irvine. They have more $$ left AFTER taxes, housing (in Irvine no less), and health care than what the median family has BEFORE all expenses. I think they have no problem being able to afford living in Irvine.. Don't you agree?
No, not "very comfortably." The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family. The welfare family would also have food stamps, whereas our friend Turtlelove has to spend her own money feeding her family. The illegal pharmacist (aka "drug dealer") may well be able to provide more for his pretty girlfriend than the Doc can do for his beautiful wife and family on W-2 income. That's how sad our system has become.
VERY dishonest.
From the article: "...when it comes to individual income taxes". So that's NOT considering payroll/social security taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc.
If 80% of payroll taxes come from the bottom 50%, and I make a headline "Rich don't pay most of the taxes - 80% of taxes come from the bottom 50%", you'd call me a liar because I'm only considering one part of the overall tax structure and then claiming that it is true of taxes overall. What this article, and the O.P. has done, is just as dishonest.
The bottom 50% gets far more SS payouts over a life time than they pay in in payroll taxes. Remember, "Saint FDR" told you paying into SS account is your own money. LOL. Please don't have selective memory now.
Dan8267
2013 Dec 14, 1:27am
Rent income is always privatized . . . because all goods and services are ultimately privatized: a piece of food in my mouth can not be swallowed by you. The only difference is whether:
It's not who consumes the resource, it's who produces it. No one created the land, the EM spectrum, the mineral and chemical resources mined. Such exploitation of public goods should benefit the public. No one should get rich simply by "owning" a mine. The miners, those producing wealth by extracting the minerals, should get rich.
There is no such thing as "public" when it comes to limited single-use/mutually-exclusive-use resources.
A single piece of coal is consumed by an individual, but the profits should go to the public since no individual made that piece of coal and to the miner who mined the coal.
Because Berners-Lee was working for a socialist institution.
If CERN is a "socialist institution" than so is the U.S. military and we should get rid of it.
From your silence, I take it your answer is, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". That's the typical fair-weather capitalism hypocritical answer.
Rent income is always privatized . . . because all goods and services are ultimately privatized: a piece of food in my mouth can not be swallowed by you. The only difference is whether:
It's not who consumes the resource, it's who produces it. No one created the land, the EM spectrum, the mineral and chemical resources mined. Such exploitation of public goods should benefit the public. No one should get rich simply by "owning" a mine. The miners, those producing wealth by extracting the minerals, should get rich.
In other words, you subscribe to the religion that anthropomorphizes the imaginary entity "Public" and pay homage to the high priests called "politicians." The "Public" god does not eat, does not sleep, does not speak, does not think, except for through self-appointed high priests speaking in its name.
Here is a reason why ownership of natural resources by real private individuals are better than having the same limited resources managed by self-appointed high priests / managers in the name of imaginary god-like entities such as "Public": the need to use the limited resources efficiently and someday selling the residual value of the mine to another private party; that means incentive for capital investment, so the mines can produce more mineral at lower human labor cost. The self-appointed high priests and "managers" have no such concern (unless the "managership" becomes hereditory like in Feudalism) therefore have a tendency to slash and burn, and engage in identity theft on future generations . . . as exemplified by our huge "public" debt.
There is no such thing as "public" when it comes to limited single-use/mutually-exclusive-use resources.
A single piece of coal is consumed by an individual, but the profits should go to the public since no individual made that piece of coal and to the miner who mined the coal.
There is no "public" . . . only bureaucrats allocating the profit to themselves and their friends. A private mine owner would have bid more than other members of the society to achieve ownership . . . that means it has to deliver goods/services to public to achieve such "ownership," quite unlike the government bureaucratic monopoly.
Because Berners-Lee was working for a socialist institution.
If CERN is a "socialist institution" than so is the U.S. military and we should get rid of it.
From your silence, I take it your answer is, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". That's the typical fair-weather capitalism hypocritical answer.
You are quite mistaken. Military is of course a socialist institution; when draft is involved, it becomes a slavery system. Then again, socialist systems are transitional phases to serfdom and slavery.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 2:50am
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
But he's into private schools? Uh--you are the one projecting.
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
Maybe--depends on where they lived.
The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
Yes, the median family typically has lots of legally tax sheltered wealth accretion. Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. We have to count the Cayman islands accounts of the median family.
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family
lol--does the welfare family live in a 4BR house in Irvine? I didn't know that! Please--keep telling me more about how the good Doc is worse off than the folks on welfare.
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
But he's into private schools? Uh--you are the one projecting.
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
Yes, the median family typically has lots of legally tax sheltered wealth accretion. Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. We have to count the Cayman islands accounts of the median family.
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family
lol--does the welfare family live in a 4BR house in Irvine? I didn't know that! Please--keep telling me more about how the good Doc is worse off than the folks on welfare.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 3:10am
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
And I'm fairly sure they'd like a Lamborghini. What's your point?
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
Not sure. Who cares?
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
And I'm fairly sure they'd like a Lamborghini. What's your point?
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
Not sure. Who cares?
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 4:42am
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
lol--sounds like I hit a nerve.
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
Yep--again what's your point. You think the median income is vastly understated? OK--please provide some evidence.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
lol--I won't hold my breath waiting for any evidence. Because I know you won't provide any...
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
lol--sounds like I hit a nerve.
Probably your own nerve. Lambo's are such a teenager boy thing. I was over that not long after getting out of college, without ever having to own one personally.
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
Yep--again what's your point. You think the median income is vastly understated? OK--please provide some evidence.
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
lol--I won't hold my breath waiting for any evidence. Because I know you won't provide any...
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo. They were in there when I bought the house, and I let them stay because one of their kids is finishing up the local high school, one of the best public high schools in the country. I'm probably losing about $300-500/mo compared to current market rate for that much square footage in the local market.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:43am
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
Here's a pro tip for you. Restating your opinion is NOT evidence
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:44am
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo. They were in there when I bought the house, and I let them stay because one of their kids is finishing up the local high school, one of the best public high schools in the country. I'm probably losing about $300-500/mo compared to current market rate for that much square footage in the local market
lol--is this one of the houses you re-plumbed? OK, whatever you say big guy.
lol--is this one of the houses you re-plumbed? OK, whatever you say big guy.
No. This is one of the houses that I bought much earlier. Obviously, houses that I bought this year with missing copper pipes wouldn't have people living in them at the time of closing.
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
Here's a pro tip for you. Restating your opinion is NOT evidence
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2? Statistical study is not the only type of evidence. Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:54am
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2?
Nope. I'm looking for evidence that this supposed underreporting is widespread enough to be meaningful and actually make a difference in median income.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:55am
Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
You added this after I responded. I guess you are not familiar with the scientific method...
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2?
Nope. I'm looking for evidence that this supposed underreporting is widespread enough to be meaningful and actually make a difference in median income.
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
You added this after I responded. I guess you are not familiar with the scientific method...
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability. No human (unless suffering alzheimer's) is dumb enough to make the same mistakes again and again despite changing knowledge base after each time.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:07am
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
That's what I thought. Nothing.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:13am
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability.
You fall in to this trap quite often. Everything has to be black and white in your world. It is entirely possible to provide evidence without it being 100% proof.
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
That's what I thought. Nothing.
That's because you can not think or read. Of course your brain draws up blank and nothing. Perhaps you should eat your own brain to grow more brain. LOL
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability.
You fall in to this trap quite often. Everything has to be black and white in your world. It is entirely possible to provide evidence without it being 100% proof.
You are making the classic econometrician mistake: too much math is not good, but the amount "I" am using is just right! You either subscribe to the full Scientific Method or you acknowledge what you are dealing with is not a natural science phenomenon but a human behavior problem subject to changing human minds. The mixed bag approach you take only proves that you are not familiar with either the Scientific Method or deductive logic and game theory.
turtledove
2013 Dec 14, 6:42am
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
I was a doctor's kid (my stepfather, to be precise... but the man I grew up with).
My brothers and I all went to private school not far from where I live, now. I would not be able to afford the same for my two children. It would cost $24,000/year to send my two to the same school. Mine go to public school, which is fine, as we live in a good school district... But even if we wanted to send them to my old private school, it wouldn't be possible.
I'm not so sure that my dad made that much more money than my husband does now, everything else has just gone up around it. For example, my dad bought my childhood home in the 1960s for about $55k. This house was a gorgeous Spanish style, 3500 square foot home on a nice piece of land with views to Catalina. That house would be impossible for us at today's prices.
My dad told me when I was a kid that he didn't recommend the medical profession for generations going forward. He was not very optimistic about the future of medicine.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:44am
You are making the classic econometrician mistake: too much math is not good, but the amount "I" am using is just right! You either subscribe to the full Scientific Method or you acknowledge what you are dealing with is not a natural science phenomenon but a human behavior problem subject to changing human minds. The mixed bag approach you take only proves that you are not familiar with either the Scientific Method or deductive logic and game theory
The scientific method says nothing about beta. You clearly don't understand the basics of the method.
At its most basic--you construct a hypothesis and you then TEST that hypothesis.
You're very good at constructing the hypothesis, but not so good at testing it. The reason is obvious--the world NEVER behaves like you think it does, so any time you test any of your theories, they always fail.
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo.
Where is this (roughly) and how much is the total rent? For that amount of subsidy, you can rent a 2-3 bedroom in SF in a good neighborhood.
The scientific method says nothing about beta. You clearly don't understand the basics of the method.
It's not "beta" but "Controlled Beta" as in Alpha-Beta test. Controlled Beta is necessary to isolate the parameters to which hypothesis relates, so as to reduce dependency on interpretations. That's the kind of scientific rigor required in natural science and engineering. In Economics however, Alpha-Beta test is almost never possible, and much is subject to interpretation . . . largely because the test subjects (human beings) are not dummies.
At its most basic--you construct a hypothesis and you then TEST that hypothesis.
Where do you get the Controlled Beta to run the Alpha-Beta "all-else-equal" test?
You're very good at constructing the hypothesis, but not so good at testing it. The reason is obvious--the world NEVER behaves like you think it does, so any time you test any of your theories, they always fail.
Since you use "always," please provide an exhaustive list of my hypotheses and how they failed in tests. Frankly, I don't remember running test at all. Tests on how other human beings would make individual economic decisions is rather silly, and highly dependent on whether they are aware of what is being tested. LOL. Did you ever see statistical argument for game theory treatise?
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo.
Where is this (roughly) and how much is the total rent? For that amount of subsidy, you can rent a 2-3 bedroom in SF in a good neighborhood.
I'm in the northeast. The house in question is in one of the most expensive towns, though not the best section of the town. The total rent is just below $2500; i.e. their own contribution is less than $200! The rules about section-8 are such that if the same tenant decides to move to the most expensive town in SFBA and can find a landlord willing to take them, their subsidy would automatically rise enough to afford them the rent there while paying less than $200 themselves! That's how outrageous it is. If I raise rent on them, 100% of the raise would be billed to the taxpayers. That's why I haven't raised their rent for years despite rising rent in the area.
The amount of maintenance work required for these tenants is outrageous as they do not know the basics of keeping a home. I can't wait for the kid to finish high school and see them leave despite being on friendly terms with them. They came with the house. I have no idea why the previous owner accepted them.
I'm in the northeast. The house in question is in one of the most expensive towns, though not the best section of the town. The total rent is just below $2500; i.e. their own contribution is less than $200! The rules about section-8 are such that if the same tenant decides to the most expensive town in SFBA and can find a landlord willing to take them, their subsidy would automatically rise enough to afford them the rent there while paying less than $200 themselves! That's how outrageous it is. If I raise rent on them, 100% of the raise would be billed to the taxpayers. That's why I haven't raised their rent for years despite rising rent in the area.
These laws are indeed crazy. Plus a couple with up to 2 kids should be able to fit in a 2 bedroom, a 3 bedroom would be already luxury compared to earlier times. Here in SF they built section 8 housing right into the heart of the city, even in Germany they don't do that but instead use cheaper lots in areas surrounding the city. Hence the subsidies for those inner-city dwellings are as high as what I pay for a SFH in one of the best school districts by the ocean but fairly unfancy neighborhood.
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 102 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
Rich Don't Pay Most of the Taxes (They Pay All of Them); Reflections on the "Almost Rich"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/rich-dont-pay-most-of-taxes-they-pay.html
Mish