For the Obama Supporters

[davekc]

Yes.



Unions do not bypass individual performance by design. I used to pick apples in the fall when I was a kid. For every 10 good apples there were probably 1 or 2 bad ones. It's just the nature of things but you are probably right because there is no such thing as a drunk or drug addict or a lazy person in an a non union shop.

I would say they are the same whether a shop is union or not. The difference is a non-union shop will fire and replace them. A union coddles them, defends them, and pays for treatment, and the list goes on. Look how many were busted in Detroit this year at auto plants. Only by the third bust did they get let go.

 

[layoutshooter]

Without trying to sound sarcastic isn't what you are describing the result of taking risks? In an earlier post you talked about how how each man should succeed or fail on his own performance. Choosing your place of residence was just that: a choice. Choice = Performance. This isn't to say you shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of moderate taxation and a responsible management of it. Having said that, home ownership is not and was not ever the best use of an individual's hard earned money. The return on investment is rarely more than a break even if that if one stays there too long. They sold people on the idea of it being the American Dream. Some dream!

40-60% is NOT moderate taxation. It is excessive. Taxing people out of their homes is excessive.

When I take risk I assume there should be return and the return should be based on the amount of risk taken and my personal performance. When government interferes, as they are doing now, and removes most of the profit from my risk, there is little incentive to work. In many ways I would be FAR better off on welfare and IF the government continues with the bogus regulations, they will put me out of business. Many of governments 'regulations'' are nothing more than either 'stealth taxes' or ways to create revenue for government. Like 100% of the 35K I have to spend THIS YEAR, if I want to remain compliant and run my business as it now runs. NONE of the money will generate even one penny more than the equipment I have now. 24K of that is to replace a TCU that is running perfectly and now on the profit side of it's life. Then, an O/O would know that.

 

[cubansammich]

40-60% is NOT moderate taxation. It is excessive. Taxing people out of their homes is excessive.

Your property taxes are 40 to 60%? Of what?

When I take risk I assume there should be return and the return should be based on the amount of risk taken and my personal performance.

Well that is unfortunate. The concept of risk seems to escape you. In a previous post you explained something to the effect that a man is weak unless he experiences failure. Perhaps this risk qualifies.

When government interferes, as they are doing now, and removes most of the profit from my risk, there is little incentive to work. In many ways I would be FAR better off on welfare

That is an option I suppose.

IF the government continues with the bogus regulations, they will put me out of business. Many of governments 'regulations'' are nothing more than either 'stealth taxes' or ways to create revenue for government. Like 100% of the 35K I have to spend THIS YEAR, if I want to remain compliant and run my business as it now runs. NONE of the money will generate even one penny more than the equipment I have now. 24K of that is to replace a TCU that is running perfectly and now on the profit side of it's life. Then, an O/O would know that.

The short answer is I feel your pain. The bigger story is you knew the government was going to screw with you when you got in this business. That is what they do. Shame on who?

 

[Turtle]

Having said that, home ownership is not and was not ever the best use of an individual's hard earned money. The return on investment is rarely more than a break even if that if one stays there too long. They sold people on the idea of it being the American Dream. Some dream!

Where do you come up with this stuff? Until the housing bubble, historically property ownership, including home ownership, has been one of the best, and safest investments that has ever existed. The return on investment of buying a home increases dramatically the longer you stay there - there is no such thing as staying there too long. It's a bad investment if you stay there 3 years or less, but for 10 or 20 years it's an incredibly sound investment.

 

[cubansammich]

Where do you come up with this stuff? Until the housing bubble, historically property ownership, including home ownership, has been one of the best, and safest investments that has ever existed.

I see. Are you saying then that home ownership is not a risk? Because something has been one way for a long time does not mean it will always be that way. Though what you say has some validity it is a gamble nonetheless.

return on investment of buying a home increases dramatically the longer you stay there - there is no such thing as staying there too long. It's a bad investment if you stay there 3 years or less, but for 10 or 20 years it's an incredibly sound investment.

Really? I would be interested to hear your definition of sound. Even if a home was purchased in let's say 1980 and required no upkeep, no updating, no insurance, etc., The value today would not be near what even a mid range mutual fund would have yielded in the same time period, and that includes losses suffered in the stock market crash. Factor in the rest and you have a dud investment. The only good point about owning a home is it provides a place to live and in most cases some pride of ownership. That's about it.

 

[piattteam]

I see. Are you saying then that home ownership is not a risk? Because something has been one way for a long time does not mean it will always be that way. Though what you say has some validity it is a gamble nonetheless.



Really? I would be interested to hear your definition of sound. Even if a home was purchased in let's say 1980 and required no upkeep, no updating, no insurance, etc., The value today would not be near what even a mid range mutual fund would have yielded in the same time period, and that includes losses suffered in the stock market crash. Factor in the rest and you have a dud investment. The only good point about owning a home is it provides a place to live and in most cases some pride of ownership. That's about it.

Yes, but, if you had purchased the "mid range mutual fund" and had the same "yield", you would have lost a tremendous amount of money. If you rented in lieu of purchasing, ALL of the money you made on the "mid range mutual fund" (and a whole lot more) would have gone into paying off somebody else's home, for their return!!!!!

 

[cubansammich]

Yes, but, if you had purchased the "mid range mutual fund" and had the same "yield", you would have lost a tremendous amount of money.

Not necessarily. I had an investment I thought was surely dead after the crash but surprisingly enough it came back with a vengeance! I still have that same fund today. It is doing quite well. In fairness to your comment, I would be in much better shape had the crash not occurred but it has come back and exceeded the point where it was prior to the melt down.

If you rented in lieu of purchasing, ALL of the money you made on the "mid range mutual fund" (and a whole lot more) would have gone into paying off somebody else's home, for their return!!!!!

Not the point. If you were lucky you might get back your original investment plus hopefully a little more, which isn't a bad thing, but not from an investment standpoint. It also assumes the property is in an area where it could be liquidated easily. If it needs to be sold and it cannot be sold, or cannot be sold for a reasonable price, what then? Stocks or a mutual fund can be liquidated quickly.

 

[paullud]

Not necessarily. I had an investment I thought was surely dead after the crash but surprisingly enough it came back with a vengeance! I still have that same fund today. It is doing quite well. In fairness to your comment, I would be much better had the crash not occurred.

Not the point. If you were lucky you might get back your original investment plus hopefully a little more, which isn't a bad thing, but not from an investment standpoint. It also assumes the property is in an area where it could be liquidated easily. If it needs to be sold and it cannot be sold, or cannot be sold for a reasonable price, what then? Stocks or a mutual fund can be liquidated quickly.

The stock market can certainly produce a much better ROI than a house, I am up 25% on my investments in Bank of America and Sprint in a matter of 2 months. My house on the other hand likely has a 2-3% increase this year because of the location in upstate NY. My situation means the stocks are obviously the better place to invest money instead of home improvements but someone that lives in a nice area near NYC would be better off spending money fixing their house as my grandparents have done. The reason my house is still a solid investment is I need a place to live and the rent in the area is only about $100 less a month than my mortgage. It has little risk of decreasing and the community is taking steps to improve the area so it will actually likely make a little bigger jump in value.






Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[layoutshooter]

"Your property taxes are 40 to 60%? Of what?"

Not ONLY speaking of property taxes. I am speaking of the total tax burden in this country. There is no way to escape it. The oppressive taxes are caused by over spending by government on all levels. It can no longer be sustained. Taxes need to come down. ALL people need to pay taxes. No more free rides. The system is broken and it may take some VERY drastic measures to fix it. One thing is for sure, the 'makers' in this country MUST be allowed to keep far more of what they earn. Excessive government spend and the oppressive taxes they cause are killing our economy.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

"Your property taxes are 40 to 60%? Of what?"

Not ONLY speaking of property taxes. I am speaking of the total tax burden in this country. There is no way to escape it. The oppressive taxes are caused by over spending by government on all levels. It can no longer be sustained. Taxes need to come down. ALL people need to pay taxes. No more free rides. The system is broken and it may take some VERY drastic measures to fix it. One thing is for sure, the 'makers' in this country MUST be allowed to keep far more of what they earn. Excessive government spend and the oppressive taxes they cause are killing our economy.

So true LOS....let the people keep more of their money....and spend it....

 

[layoutshooter]

So true LOS....let the people keep more of their money....and spend it....

Even the ability to save money is affect by the tax burden. Nothing can function with the tax structure as it is.

 

[Pilgrim]

Your back to the "source" discussion? I agree completely with that so not sure why you quoted me?
Thanks for the story though.

So what's your point?