patrick.net

My point is, don't come to N. Idaho.

Back in the good old days when Californians were Equity rich and could sell their place in CA, N. Idaho particularly became a haven for CA retirees. Drove the price of real-estate out of sight (by our standards). Lake property, historically priced to where wage earners could afford it, tripled and quadrupled in just a few years time.

Spokaneman says

My point is, don't come to N. Idaho.

Back in the good old days when Californians were Equity rich and could sell their place in CA, N. Idaho particularly became a haven for CA retirees. Drove the price of real-estate out of sight (by our standards). Lake property, historically priced to where wage earners could afford it, tripled and quadrupled in just a few years time.

if prices can't be supported by local economy it's a bubble. The only was those prices are sustainable is to recruit more greater fools from California.

We had the same thing happen here. People in silicon valley confused cheap with good value and bought a bunch of houses in the desert. Now it's ground zero of the housing crash.

I just came back from Las Vegas.

A friend bought a 1600sf house in LV for cheap. He asked me if I would move to LV. After some thought I said "may be" but "no". After I got back, and after further thought, I wouldnt buy in socal either. I just read an article about a house that was bought in 1901 for $1000 and this month it was sold for $900k. Wow, it seems alot of profit. But the article analyzed the costs of ownership, dealing with leaking plumbing, and eventually, it was just about even with inflation.

Houseownership is about 70% in America. In europe, say Germany, it is about 40%. Dont fall for "American Dream" promoted by the real estate industry.

I had owned and I had rented. I concluded that it is better to rent.

Of course things will change, that's the only constant in life. Like everyone else, you just have to play the cards you've been dealt and hope for the best. I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and as a young person it seemed like things were out of my reach too. While it's good and necessary to look at the big picture it's also important not to lose sight of the small one - our daily individual lives where we all live. I bought my first house at the height of a bubble over 20 yrs ago but I was busy and preoccupied and frankly didn't pay any attention to whether my house value had gone down or not. When I did decide to move a few years later I sold for a small profit and have invested and reinvested the money ever since. I probably saved myself a lot of stress b/c I paid no attention to the larger picture. You can do the same. If you want a house and need more room, go for it - as long as you can comfortably afford the payments you'll be fine. Once you buy, tune out all the negative info about the economy. Instead of seeing home buyers as 'loan-owners' consider the fact that they are actually 'asset-creaters'; Nobody ever created an asset paying rent. In reality, despite all the negative news about the housing market, most people who've purchased houses have created assets for themselves. Anyway - good luck - and no I'm not in anyway involved in the RE industry - I'm an engineer and small business owner and this is my opinion.

While the system is indeed rigged its successful at being rigged mainly because Americans are so eager and willing to play along. Even after the largest housing bust in history most Americans- especially those in places like the Bay Area- are still lapping up the kool aid. In order for any real change to happen Americans in general need a major overhaul in the way they view and handle financial decisions.

I'd say that for most Americans their No.1 financial concern is a house. Second is probably either a car or their children's educations. Somewhere down the list comes retirement. The fact of the matter is that retirement needs to absolutely be at the top of that list. You'll need at least one million dollars in retirement- not including the value of your house- in order to have a meager salary of around 40k per year if you live in a metro area. Double that for expensive metros. What good is a house if when you retire all you can afford to eat is cat food? Besides- we're all gonna' wind up in retirement homes anyway and personally I want a retirement home with an indoor heated pool and a theater. Besides- the average retirement home costs around $75,000 a year these days. So if you don't save for retirement you're pretty much screwed and your house or whatever value it has won't save you either.

The American Dream was just a handy catch phrase. What is that supposed to mean anyway? Is owning a house really a dream? Is that all there is to it? If so there are PLENTY of dirt-cheap houses just about anywhere in the USA that you can easily buy. The American Dream is and always was a load of crap. Sure- it helped coerce people into buying little wooden boxes so they could feel "secure" and better about themselves as if there's some unwritten societal expectation all must follow.

Lastly, as I previously mentioned we're sort of thinking of buying. I'll fully admit I feel prices are still stupid. But in the end its about what you can actually afford and what your financial situation is. If we were making- say 100k between us there would be no way in hell I'd buy here. If we didn't have significant savings already we would also not buy. We've saved money the old-fashioned way: We simply socked money away and lived cheap. Everyone needs to do some serious analysis of their finances and then perhaps consider talking to a financial adviser before making a major financial decision of any kind.

One more thing. BMWman, as mentioned before I too wrench and like having a yard. As also mentioned the house we rent has a yard and a garage. We're paying a lot less for the house than most apartments on the Peninsula. So its not like you too couldn't do something like this. Does it mean commuting a bit further? Sure. Is it worth it to have a space to do the things I want to do and be able to work on the projects I have in a space that allows me to to it? For me- yes. It sounds like this is very important to you. So perhaps if you feel that strongly about it perhaps you might consider at least looking at what it would cost to rent a place in the east bay or another area removed from Silicon Valley. Just sayin'...

edvard2 says

I'd say that for most Americans their No.1 financial concern is a house.
Second is probably either a car or their children's educations.
Somewhere down the list comes retirement.

The fact of the matter is that retirement needs to absolutely be at the top of that list. You'll need at least one million dollars in retirement- not including the value of your house- in order to have a meager salary of around 40k per year if you live in a metro area.

yep. people are short sighted and have very badly mis-prioritized their finances.

for anyone with common sense retirement nest egg is the biggest priority, much higher than buying a house.

the sad thing is the folks with money will be taken advantage of to help the idiots.

There are reasons to believe we will not return to the model you are all idolizing. The cheap housing, simple mortgage model was created out of the depression and flourished during the Baby Boomer years. That was reliant on cheap oil, good jobs and a constantly growing economy. Those days are gone.

The good news: Housing will get cheaper. Unfortunately, not on our schedule. And the pricing slide is likely to be bumpy with false bottoms along the way.

Fundamentally, our way of life is likely to change which will impact housing dramatically. No one has mentioned Oil in this thread... and the price of oil directly and dramatically impacts our entire economy (including housing).

Try this on: How much is a house in Las Vegas worth if you Oil becomes extremely expensive? That house is worthless at $200/barrel oil because you can't afford to drive a car to it... can you air condition that house? Hoover does NOT supply all the electricity... petroleum still rules.

Food is reliant on Oil as well... it is transported relatively long distances... and fertilizer is petroleum based.

Whether you believe in "peak oil" or not, energy is going to be more expensive. More than 2 Billion people (in China and India) are starting to buy cars. Do you really think we can pump fast enough? And what if "Peak Oil" is true? We are all F'ed then!

True Chris and everything else is Oil reliant. Trucks criss cross the country continually. This is a nation built on paper. The people who distribute it and those that labor for it. Which is most everyone. Everything derives off of fractional lending. So most everyone owes. In one way or another. Truth is once again they can print all they want.

When it is the only legal means of trade. The ones that print it have absolute control of resources. The only measure being making sure people don't get to much paper and take all of the goods and material. That other labor they give paper to get to market is not stripped off of the shelves. They can also control by inflation or deflation.

Truth being is the people that give all of the paper out don't like all of this going on now. Because a cheap house means getting less labor out of you for a shorter time. In fact if you check most places will not lend under 40k for a house and never under 25k. Real reason they won't have you hooked and you will be out of it. Paper isn't worth a shit. The house is. Once you realize the assets are more key than the asswipe. You will have a better understanding.

My friend retired as a guard at the Q and sold his house in Berkeley just before the bubble popped. He has a nice SUV and pulls a cool little Airstream around the country. His wife still agrees with the arrangement. They migrate around the USA and have fun. He's only been doing it for several years and may eventually plunk down cash for a place somewhere that has no income tax. He's got plenty of it.
The trick of renting is not complicated. You rent from someone whose reach has exceeded his grasp. He needs a responsible renter who won't flake out and screw him out of rent and wreck the place, etc.
My grandmother rented and I never knew it until I was much older. We visited her in her fantastic houses, one was an old carriage house made of stone with cobble stone driveway and surrounded by woods which were fun to explore. This was in upstate NY. She always had money by the way. She was a businesswoman when few women did. Imagine doing business in the 30's?
Owning something sometimes means you are afraid to not own. Or, it's because you can easily afford it. If you can easily afford the debt and the non appreciation of the asset, buy one. But you're seen as a cash cow by the local governments who are broke and looking for suckers to tax.

Appreciation of an asset never ment a damn to most of the people that are around. Autos well you can stick a fork in that one. Everything else I feel anyway is devalued to 0 by legal tender. Whats left a house. They appreciated. No one sold and took advantage. Thats most people. They understand that believe me. A house for most people is a place to live appreciate or not.

Debt to me isn't good because you can't do what you want. You have to do what others want. Therefore losing control over your life. Going someplace you don't want to be. Debt is bad advice always. I don't really think paper puts anyone in debt myself for the most part. Paper has little value.

It's the asset and the labor involved tied to the asset. If you could look at paper as more like the time and labor involved for the asset, food and material. Auto, gas, you might be better off and have a clear picture of what you have gotten yourself into.

See in THEIR formulations that is how THEY calculate. See they figure labor and man hours for the asset, food, material and gas. Its foolish to do so with paper alone.

TechGromit says

You obviously have no idea where your supermarket food comes from, let alone how to grow it. America is often called the Bread Basket of the world, America exports 20% of it food a year. The United States grows 100 billion dollars worth of Crops and 100 billion dollars in livestock.

Well tech food does not grow in the United States as such.. IF you read this is a barren land then you will understand YOU have to plant. If you do not plant it will not grow. As far as it being the largest supplier I do not buy that. There are other countries that far outdo the United States. New Zealand is a poor example. Unless your talking about sheep. So read if you do not plant here it will not grow. In many countries food just grows and all you have to do is go out and get it. Without planting. It costs nothing. No one has a green house here in America. Ask yourself why. Answer: The people they owe and work for may not or would not like that at all. People here give away a LOT of labor for food. Even if they didn't it is still very difficult to grow here compared to other places.

One other thing I would like to note this WE stuff. America is the bread basket of the world. So proud of that. Deal is you don't get anything from it you have to labor for the food. Everything is considered we like held in common. Like malls proud of that. Like theatres, grocery stores. I guess among people in debt its a source of identification and pride. I dunno. People of this country act like they own all this stuff they don't. The debt merchants do. Most of this country just got in debt to them and helped them build it all. Try going to see them if you lose your jobbie. That may mean you screwed up. Didn't say or think the right things by them possibly. Then take a look around. Things may not look so pretty and proud.

bmwman91 says

The government subsidies for housing via GSE loans, the MID, prop 13, RE agent-favoring MLS system, shadow inventory, squatters and low interest rates are all items on a (probably incomplete) list of things that us would-be buyers wish to see go away in hopes of lowering house prices.

MID, Prop 13, and low interest rates have not prevented prices from falling decades ago, and will not prevent prices from falling today or in the future. I do agree MID should be phased out.

I think squatting would be very appropriate. Unoccupied land is no ones. Universal in many places. Some have rules of years. Truth is someone is not on that land no one has it. Again this is a land of co-op which means laws are held in common not of anything else. They enforce by the people for the people that is what the law is based on for the most part. Common law added. That is also cooperative in being. Law enforcement again is for the benefit of the agents of debt. Land is really no one accept in agreement. It's tricky. But again universal check other countries. Truly this is a freeze plug for debt people. Really the word squatting is on purpose and well guys I know don't do that unless they have mastercard. Look I want you to be free buck up.

''In Israel back when land was never bought or sold. Inheritance is a theologically rich concept that guided Israel's relationship to the land. The basic idea is that the land is Yahweh's land. "The earth is the Lord's," the psalmist could sing (Ps. 24:1). "The land is mine," says Yahweh (Lev. 25:23). Throughout Joshua 13-19, land is first and foremost an inheritance given to Israel by Yahweh. Land is Yahweh's gift to be passed on from generation to generation." Land was never bought and sold in Israel for all you USA Christian country fans. I'm sure Pat Robertson will be the first to tell you when he gets his loans paid off. Not only that in Assyria and the entire Middle East land was never sold. You just picked a spot out a God given right. Enter usury joining fields "same thing as you can imagine". Smart ass grecian law and greed of taxation led to the subdividing of cities of land for booty and tax. The few get their nickles and dimes and jobbies and pay out the nose. LOOK AT YOU NOW.

I'll add one more thing selling land in Israel and the usury there leads me to believe the Jews returning to their homeland was a crock and nothing but a setup and device for war based on some really weak renderings. To take the resources of the middle east and of potentially dangerous people of Israel and get the support of some unknowing otherwise well meaning people.

dodgerfanjohn says

Well, that is the final contingency. I would move to Las Vegas if it made sense as a retirement option. I love that city already, and if cost is the deciding factor, thats a desireable option(for me).

Yeah, but then you'd have to live in Nevada man, Nevada. Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

You know, I would almost be OK with Las Vegas. Rock climbing is one of my big things, and with Red Rocks right there, it would be incredible. My issue with the place is that it is a desert. The growth of that city is completely dependent on, what seems to me, unsustainable water procurement practices. No water = no city.

I was looking at Vegas in 2007 (as a programmer I like how it's a night-time city) but man is it isolated from the rest of the planet.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3105-Biscayne-Springs-Ln-Las-Vegas-NV-89117/7112936_zpid/

is a listing next to a $300,000 place in 2007 -- prices have collapsed by half since then.

But that place is too exposed, I'd want something much more solidly in the fortress.

The problem with Vegas is that there's too many houses and not enough people. Or will be once the people who can't find jobs leave.

Okay, I welcome you're opinions, responses, and/or disagreements. After two years of looking online, a property finally evoked enough interest for me to even want to go look at it. Why? My Father owns one of the units in the same complex. He is a Senior. It's actually a HUD property now, not on the MLS and available currently to investors. The price is 160K. It's a 2 bedroom 2 Bath, 900 square feet. $180 a square foot. There are some nice upgrades such as hardwood floors and tile. A similiar unit just sold for 190K in the same building. The mortgage would be exactly the same as I am paying now in rent. The unit sold for 330k in the bubble, it was 'jingle mail'. Like many people on this blog, there is a possibility prices will drop further..

Move to Ecuador where you can still afford to buy a home, food is cheap and medicial/dental services are great quality, but with prices form the 1950's. That's what I'm doing.

Probably a better plan R Scott, thanks. One part of me is thinking: "You want to buy where 50% + properties are distress sales? (including this one) and if prices do drop more I'm screwed.

bmwman91 says

What Would You Do If Nothing Changed?

Well,nothing is permanent, it has to change. I am saying it is gonna get worse.

Dan8267 says

Travis Bickle says

If it continues for that long and nothing changes, I'll go ex-pat and run for the exits.

I just moved back to the States from Vancouver. By comparison, it makes even San Francisco look like a super bargain. Patrick posted an Economist article yesterday that basically stated that US real estate is under priced. Many countries are still way overpriced. I highly recommend you read it. These were the same guys who predicted this housing crash and seem to have excellent assessments of the global economy.

Ditto. If we are priced out forever, then we'll go to another market. Our savings would go far in other countries.

I'm answering my own questions. It is pretty pathetic that after two years, I find one, probably over priced property with a few good qualities, such as location within the city, access to transportation, and importantly business centers with at least (hopefully) job prospects. Basically, I would have to accept the possibility I would have a low interest payment, but underwater..

US empire is on the verge of collapse. How can things not change? This is gross violation of natural laws of economics.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GFDEBTN

Bluedistantstar says:

"It's not greedy to want to make the right financial decision for yourself..."

a lot of people are telling me to buy right now (especially people who have recently bought), but i'm holding out for something better. i'm being greedy.

greed...is good.

The Iranians need a Tea party movement.... To the Victors belong the Gullible. Too also I think the Federal Reserve corp. Empire could be failing. No one wants to think it. Could it be true. Only a few hundred years of paper. Before that.....

AdamCarollaFan says

Bluedistantstar says:

"It's not greedy to want to make the right financial decision for yourself..."

a lot of people are telling me to buy right now (especially people who have recently bought), but i'm holding out for something better. i'm being greedy.

greed...is good.

what if prices are flat for the next 20 years?

@toothfairy

ceteris paribus, i'd either choose 1 of two options:

a. rent as cheap as I could, or
b. buy a little bungalow that fits my needs

after a year or two of option a, i'd probably choose option b.

bubblesitter says

How can things not change? This is gross violation of natural laws of economics.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GFDEBTN

That's only one part in isolation.

Looking at the whole picture:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO

we can see a Great Flattening.

Clearly what's happening is private sphere is deleveraging while the public sphere is getting loaded up on debt.

Graphing by component:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3BP

one can see Big Finance (yellow) defaulting on debt, households (red) in the penalty box, and corporations (green) slowly adding debt.

The Feds (blue) are the ones carrying the debt ball forward now.

My favorite is the SWIFFY SWIFFER. Right round the Iraq incursion. They started selling SWIFFY SWIFFERS. No one really needed a SWIFFY SWIFFER. I started having nightmares of being assualted with a swiffer. I even married a swiffer in one dream.

I tried to figure out why Chase Manhattan would even want to sell swiffers. One of my tenants had one. I tried it out. Hey slick but damn do they have to run that commercial 300 times a day? I was being nice. Of course. I really had doubts about anyone really wanting a swiffer. It was ok. Nothing a mop couldn't do of course with some lemmon i guess.

Think of all the people it employ's someone was thinking. Yea and think of all the half filled boxes of cookies and same of bags of potato chips. My silent question was does ripping your neighbor off constitute an honest jobbie. More often than not it may not.

So America needs SWIFFERS. BADLY. Dunking dognuts and Starbucks the place to meet. I prefer a good church to meet. I have met more people at church than anywhere or a mosque. True you have to put up with the religous bullshit. But hey its a good place to get free liquor and find a fun girl. Not trying to scare anyone but you just may be on track. Anyway. Here is my offering to the great state of California and its way hip people.

ArtimusMaxtor says

o America needs SWIFFERS. BADLY. Dunking dognuts and Starbucks the place to meet. I prefer a good church to meet. I have met more people at church than anywhere or a mosque. True you have to put up with the religous bullshit. But hey its a good place to get free liquor and find a fun girl. Not trying to scare anyone but you just may be on track. Anyway. Here is my offering to the great state of California and its way hip people.

SWIFFER is not a all together bad deal Art but you gonna want to wash what ever it is you are swiffing with a real good scrub at some later point. ok. it is just a fast job for suprise company or if you in a hurry.

Lemon does a good job.

I watched them take out the Occupy in LA. Hippies used to have problems gathering. The way they used to do things? They would line the streets. Outside of clubs. Not going in all that much but going in. Then when it came time to march they would gather. There was way to many out lining the streets. Smoking weed, talking, drinking, sleeping in various places.

In many cases the entire city was filled with them crashing together in apt buildings. Sometimes as many as 15 in one apartment. Was far to spread out to manage. It took them 6 years to get rid of them all after Vietnam. It was a real pain. In came ole slick Jimmy Carter of grecian formula fame. He had a lot of people fooled me included. I watched a film called Gumball Rally the other night. There it was kind of transparent in many respects.

Everyone thought he was something else. Nothing more than Plato with grey hair and a practiced smile. Obomber calmed the world down. Seems to go that way when we are in deep shit with the rest of the world. The system gave itself away this time. Too juicy a target I guess. Plus we owe the debt merchants for military equipment. Leases on our battleships from England. Also mostly everything else of asset.

Some people also don't realize how far other countries will go for the debt merchants. Sometimes just for a slice of the pie. I demonstrated how Iraq was sliced up and given away. Makes me wonder about the carving up of Afganistan. A taken peoples don't have much choice.

Here we sit as fools. Not knowing a GD thing or able to do anything about it. You pile the no nothings and too afraid to say on us. The war buzzards that try to hustle us. That don't have enough sense to figure out all their people are in debt. But hey isn't war great and aren't we having fun as a gang? Look at all this great stuff. We don't really own shit. But its great to look at.

I look at the songs of the Vietnam era. I came to the realization they were nothing more than the debt merchants having fun with youth and love. Things like: say you want a revolution. Don't you want somebody to love? The songs contained nothing of revolution for the most part. Just the things of love. Some of lifestyle. Arlo Guthries: Coming into Los Angeles. Which the police might love. Police work can be big business too. I guess.

"Coming in from London from over the pole
Flying in a big airliner"

Dan8267 says

Travis Bickle says

If it continues for that long and nothing changes, I'll go ex-pat and run for the exits.

Ditto. If we are priced out forever, then we'll go to another market. Our savings would go far in other countries.

+1

This is very good question. I'm beginning to sense that there won't be any
change in our financial system. They want to show nothing is wrong with
the system despite a few hiccups.

US might rhyme similar to Japan of last 20 years. Maybe housing/stock
market won't be as depressed as Japan's lost decades. But we will pay
other ways.

I'm uncertain as other people but I think I'll do following
1. I will stay invested in assets(house, stock etc) but don't expect high
return and be aware I am paying much higher price than it looks.
2. Hedge inflation: invest in some commodities but fight daily inflation.
3. Forget social security/medicare and prepare retirement by myself.

Plus if conservatives succeed in hand waving away the two trillion plus in FICA over contributions, St. Reagan will have really raised taxes on the middle quintiles.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Summary of provisions

The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows[2]:

phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

How did I miss this thread?

thomas.wong1986 says

Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

pretty sad you've gotta link to a right-wing propaganda mill to make your point, thomas.

Whatever our economy accomplished during the 1980s, it was built on an s-curve of leverage:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3CQ

It might have been "successful", but it wasn't responsible. Something was certainly rotten in the state of Denmark when I was coming out of college in the early 1990s, and frankly I have yet to really undertand what really underpinned the recovery of the mid-1990s.

One thing that did get rolling in the mid-1990s was the return of leverage in the financial sector:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3CS

shows how annual debt take-on in Big Finance went to over 5% of GDP in the mid-1990s.

Additionally, the yuan rate was lowered dramatically prior to 1995:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AEXCHUS

That's part of the story but I haven't worked it all out yet.

Maybe it was the return of the Baby Boom too that got the economy rolling again. They were aged 34 to 49 in 1995. Or maybe it was all the $1 gasoline, that was great. Plus Windows 95 and the dotcom revolution, that didn't hurt either.

thomas.wong1986 says

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

which was followed by a tax rise:

" One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. "

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Bellingham Bill says

which was followed by a tax rise:

You mean consolidated 15 to 4 tax rate brackets. Similar to what we have today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Income tax rates

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The "bubble rate" of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.