Is there an upside to Vegas?
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:19:05 PM
permalink
I am won of those wacky guys that likes to buy low and sell high. Call me crazy. This article paints a pretty bad image of Vegas:
realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=204db13a-3734-439f-ad0d-79c446346361
"People are leaving Las Vegas -- if they can"
"The party's over in Las Vegas, one of the cities where the real-estate bust has hit the hardest."
"Unemployment is at 14.5%. More than 81% of properties in Las Vegas are worth less than their owners owe on their mortgages, and 57% of home sales are distressed properties. In Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, 14.9% of homes are vacant, up from 8.5% in 2000."
I am thinking of moving and Vegas is an option. Any good reasons to do so?
realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=204db13a-3734-439f-ad0d-79c446346361
"People are leaving Las Vegas -- if they can"
"The party's over in Las Vegas, one of the cities where the real-estate bust has hit the hardest."
"Unemployment is at 14.5%. More than 81% of properties in Las Vegas are worth less than their owners owe on their mortgages, and 57% of home sales are distressed properties. In Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, 14.9% of homes are vacant, up from 8.5% in 2000."
I am thinking of moving and Vegas is an option. Any good reasons to do so?
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:03:32 PM
permalink
As to your decision-making to move, that's up to you. But FWIW, I don't think Vegas's current residential state is a "new normal" like there is in Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc. I think it will eventually come back up. But I also think getting a home loan in Vegas will be pretty hard unless you bring a larger equity chunk to the table, say, at least 20% and maybe up to 50% depending on the kind of place you want to buy. And, you'll need to have a job.
But, if I had, oh, a $100 million fund and some VERY patient capital, I'd buy every vacant/underperforming lot on the strip and hold until the next upswing. Maybe I'd do some entitlement, plat, and utility work in the meantime, but I think that would be a great play.
But, if I had, oh, a $100 million fund and some VERY patient capital, I'd buy every vacant/underperforming lot on the strip and hold until the next upswing. Maybe I'd do some entitlement, plat, and utility work in the meantime, but I think that would be a great play.
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:13:34 PM
permalink
What would you consider an "upside"?
That your house retains its value?
That your house doubles in value?
That your house doubles in value in 5 years?
The baby-boomers are still coming, but thier 401ks, thier own home values, and maybe the job that they HAD, isn't what it used to be.
And much of the growth in LV was predicated on the baby-boomers coming. And those leaving California's high taxes...
Detail your hoped for "upside" and then we can discuss it further.
SFB
That your house retains its value?
That your house doubles in value?
That your house doubles in value in 5 years?
The baby-boomers are still coming, but thier 401ks, thier own home values, and maybe the job that they HAD, isn't what it used to be.
And much of the growth in LV was predicated on the baby-boomers coming. And those leaving California's high taxes...
Detail your hoped for "upside" and then we can discuss it further.
SFB
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:29:49 PM
permalink
Buy the hell out of real estate. Even in LV!
The cost of building materials are going up, not down!
If you had to rebuild many of the houses out there, you couldn't build them for the current "for sale price".
In ten years we'll all look back at these cheap prices and wish that we had taken advantage of the great deals.
The cost of building materials are going up, not down!
If you had to rebuild many of the houses out there, you couldn't build them for the current "for sale price".
In ten years we'll all look back at these cheap prices and wish that we had taken advantage of the great deals.
March 2nd, 2011 at 4:05:16 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserBuy the hell out of real estate. Even in LV!
The cost of building materials are going up, not down!
If you had to rebuild many of the houses out there, you couldn't build them for the current "for sale price".
In ten years we'll all look back at these cheap prices and wish that we had taken advantage of the great deals.
I say in 10 years we all look back and say why the hell are our real estate prices STILL at 2010 prices!
Of course, if they bring back the NO qualifying, interest only, no credit check, sub-prime mortgages, and sell them to Wall Street investors with AIG insurance in case of defaults, we we ALL be Billionaires in just a few years!
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:09:19 PM
permalink
Quote: Yoyomama
I am thinking of moving and Vegas is an option. Any good reasons to do so?
Depends on what you do? Getting a job in LV is not easy right now, but if you are somehow self-employed and able to work from anywhere there seem to be deals to be had. I doubt we will see housing prices rise so fast as in 2003-6. Strictly strip-wise, I think casinos are built up enough for maybe 20 years and it will take time to grow-into what is there now. The Mirage opened in 1988 (?) when Steve Wynn saw no casino had been built in years and rooms were hard to find. He built it just 3 years after Tony Spilotro was gone from a Vegas that was then seen as mafia-ridden and no growth. It will take another period of no new casinos and steady growth then another visionary to change the game as Mirage did.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:18:52 PM
permalink
Yes. But I agree with Duffman that you shouldn't go if you are looking for a job. Either have a fixed income, solid capital, or be self-employed/have some other type of guaranteed employment/income.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:31:26 PM
permalink
Opportunities always exist.
What about Vulture Funds buying up those 400,000 dollar condos for 50,000 dollars.
Many people who used to "flip" houses are now "flipping" foreclosures and builder's closeouts.
Family members are joining in buying a house to be used as a "time share". Its cheap enough to do such things in Vegas.
Will things get worse? Beats me.
What about Vulture Funds buying up those 400,000 dollar condos for 50,000 dollars.
Many people who used to "flip" houses are now "flipping" foreclosures and builder's closeouts.
Family members are joining in buying a house to be used as a "time share". Its cheap enough to do such things in Vegas.
Will things get worse? Beats me.
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:47:35 PM
permalink
Even the worst of American cities only shrinks by 1.5% per year over the long term. Manhattan is probably the only major place in America to peak in population before WWI.
What do you forecast for Vegas?
| Name | Type | POPpeak | Year | POPnow | Year Now | Per Year |
| Brooklyn | County | 2,738,175 | 1950 | 2,567,098 | 2009 | -0.11% |
| Manhattan | County | 2,331,542 | 1910 | 1,629,054 | 2009 | -0.36% |
| Boston | City | 801,444 | 1950 | 645,169 | 2009 | -0.37% |
| Chicago | City | 3,620,962 | 1950 | 2,851,268 | 2009 | -0.40% |
| Washington DC | City | 802,178 | 1950 | 599,657 | 2009 | -0.49% |
| Philadelphia | County | 2,071,605 | 1950 | 1,547,297 | 2009 | -0.49% |
| Baltimore | City | 949,708 | 1950 | 637,418 | 2009 | -0.67% |
| Detroit | City | 1,849,568 | 1950 | 910,921 | 2009 | -1.19% |
| Cleveland | City | 914,808 | 1950 | 431,369 | 2009 | -1.27% |
| St. Louis | City | 856,796 | 1950 | 356,587 | 2009 | -1.47% |
What do you forecast for Vegas?
March 2nd, 2011 at 7:33:27 PM
permalink
Ah, the year before the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. I can only imagine what a crowded hell hole Manhattan was back in those days.Quote: pacomartin
Name Type POPpeak Year POPnow Year Now Per Year Manhattan County 2,331,542 1910 1,629,054 2009 -0.36%
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:25:07 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiff
What about Vulture Funds buying up those 400,000 dollar condos for 50,000 dollars.
They aren't 400K condo's anymore, they're 50K. I believe in the next 15 years they might be 100K condo's, but they're never going up in value as fast or anywhere near what it was. Reminds me of many collectibles that were worth a fortune until Ebay came along we discovered that many collectibles weren't rare at all and the bottom fell out. I don't believe the sellers market that Vegas once was is ever coming back. Vegas was a big experiment that failed. Now its time for the scaled back version, the sane version, the Vegas thats going to last.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:49:44 PM
permalink
Back in the early 00's there was indeed quite a boom in Vegas which was driven by the megaprojects on the strip. Wynn opened, Venetian opened, City Center looked promising, and hotels up and down the strip were remodelling and expanding. There was a shortage of properties and people were outbidding everyone else trying to get a piece of the action.
When the bottom fell out in mid-2008, it really fell out. The projects at Fontainebleau and Echelon fell on their faces. Casinos were laying off.
The fact is that Vegas is a one or perhaps two industry town driven by the gambling strip and secondarily by its convention space (also on the strip). If the economy goes south, so does Vegas. Add to that competition everywhere, from Macau/Singapore to California to everywhere else in the states. Add to that the fact that the problem gambler (which contributes to about 35 percent of casino revenue) would rather forego a trip to Vegas to gamble by staying home to Vegas, and you can see why Vegas crashed as hard as it did.
Will it come back? It certainly won't come back to where it was 4 years ago. It will take a long time for housing to come back. Generally speaking, crime is about 4 times higher than the US average (for all kinds of crime). The challenge for Vegas is for the city not to turn into a proverbial shithole because of a declining tax base, low property taxes, an insurgence of criminals, and the inability to protect its citizens. If the city becomes unsafe, especially along the strip, that will drive more people away and the Vegas outside of the strip will suffer - badly.
If Vegas can keep the city from declining, then it has a chance to come back. People will spend their money when they have the money and feel more secure about their jobs. Employment will gradually bounce back and those folks who have reverse mortgages will have turned over their homes to a new set of owners. The city can rebuild and tourists will return. Fontainebleau and Echelon will complete. The older hotels will refurbish or be replaced. I think it's probably a good 5 years away before any of that happens.
When the bottom fell out in mid-2008, it really fell out. The projects at Fontainebleau and Echelon fell on their faces. Casinos were laying off.
The fact is that Vegas is a one or perhaps two industry town driven by the gambling strip and secondarily by its convention space (also on the strip). If the economy goes south, so does Vegas. Add to that competition everywhere, from Macau/Singapore to California to everywhere else in the states. Add to that the fact that the problem gambler (which contributes to about 35 percent of casino revenue) would rather forego a trip to Vegas to gamble by staying home to Vegas, and you can see why Vegas crashed as hard as it did.
Will it come back? It certainly won't come back to where it was 4 years ago. It will take a long time for housing to come back. Generally speaking, crime is about 4 times higher than the US average (for all kinds of crime). The challenge for Vegas is for the city not to turn into a proverbial shithole because of a declining tax base, low property taxes, an insurgence of criminals, and the inability to protect its citizens. If the city becomes unsafe, especially along the strip, that will drive more people away and the Vegas outside of the strip will suffer - badly.
If Vegas can keep the city from declining, then it has a chance to come back. People will spend their money when they have the money and feel more secure about their jobs. Employment will gradually bounce back and those folks who have reverse mortgages will have turned over their homes to a new set of owners. The city can rebuild and tourists will return. Fontainebleau and Echelon will complete. The older hotels will refurbish or be replaced. I think it's probably a good 5 years away before any of that happens.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:34:22 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboAdd to that the fact that the problem gambler (which contributes to about 35 percent of casino revenue) would rather forego a trip to Vegas to gamble by staying home.
There are new casinos opening monthly everywhere now. They're a far bigger threat to Vegas never getting back to where it was. Joe Gambler blows all his money at the local and he has no desire to go to Vegas anymore. Most indian casinos in this country make incredible amounts of money, which used to go to Vegas. In the last 5 years, so many casinos have opened within 90min of my house that I rarely even think of Vegas anymore. I only go to gamble, I could care less about the food or any of it. Nevada had a monopoly for decades. Those days are gone forever.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:46:27 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobVegas was a big experiment that failed. Now its time for the scaled back version, the sane version, the Vegas thats going to last.
"the sane version"
Oh no, that would be disapointing.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:52:03 PM
permalink
The whole idea behind Vegas is something you can't get elsewhere to bring people to the desert. We will probably legalize prostitution in the city. We'll have a desert shopping center for nudists. Pony rides!
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:56:20 AM
permalink
Some pretty ordinarily capitalized people will probably get wealthy in Vegas by making their moves in real estate, when the time is right. Real estate is probably the most common way people get wealth in this country, and in nothing else can you get the kind of leverage you can get, for the average guy. Now, whether *now* is the right time or not, that is the rub.
Having said all that, personally I dislike investing in real estate.
Having said all that, personally I dislike investing in real estate.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:56:49 AM
permalink
I hate the phrase when people say the house is worth less than the money they owe on it, with most mortgages this is nearly always true to begin with anyway. The moment you sell your house when its worth less than the mortgage you lose. Nobody ever advises people to just stay put, and sit it out. Unless your mortgage payments have gone up, or your wages have gone down, what difference does it really make anyway? Property is one the best long term investments you can make (if not THE best). The key word there is LONG. You have to ride out the storm, and you will be ok in the end. If you suffer unemployment, thats a whole lot different.
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/10042-woes-black-sheep-game-ii/#post151727
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:24:31 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardofEnglandProperty is one the best long term investments you can make (if not THE best).
That is debatable. What is not debatable is that the leverage you can get is outstanding.
to illustrate: try this with your stock broker: "Hi, I'd like to buy $400,000 worth of of stock. Here's my $10,000. The rest gets paid over time. Furthermore, I don't agree to minimum margin requirement in this deal, so no margin calls. "
Of course he will say no, but you may have been able to do just that when you bought your house. And if it appreciates, the entire amount of the equity gained is yours.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:01:11 AM
permalink
I'm sure some people, like Warren Buffet can do it. But for the average Joe, property is the best place to gain leverage. Where else can you get people to give you money so you can make more money? Great deal if it ends up working out for you; a lot of people don't care for the ins and outs of managing, though. However, you are your own boss, so you sink or swim on your own.Quote: odiousgambit
to illustrate: try this with your stock broker: "Hi, I'd like to buy $400,000 worth of of stock. Here's my $10,000. The rest gets paid over time. Furthermore, I don't agree to minimum margin requirement in this deal, so no margin calls. "
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:09:42 AM
permalink
In 1870 St. Louis was bigger than Chicago and smaller than only New York City/Brooklyn (who were still separate cities at the time) and Philadelphia. Now St. Louis is not in the top 50 cities in the country. In my mind, St. Louis has fallen faster and further than any other American city. The rate of population decrease has only averaged 1.5% per year since WWII.
It would be unprecedented in American culture for a city to lose 5% to 10% of it's population over a sustained period of time. The city is very attractive to people who are now retiring. It may become the supreme retirement city in the country.
It would be unprecedented in American culture for a city to lose 5% to 10% of it's population over a sustained period of time. The city is very attractive to people who are now retiring. It may become the supreme retirement city in the country.
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:31:06 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIn 1870 St. Louis was bigger than Chicago and smaller than only New York City/Brooklyn (who were still separate cities at the time) and Philadelphia. Now St. Louis is not in the top 50 cities in the country. In my mind, St. Louis has fallen faster and further than any other American city. The rate of population decrease has only averaged 1.5% per year since WWII.
It would be unprecedented in American culture for a city to lose 5% to 10% of it's population over a sustained period of time. The city is very attractive to people who are now retiring. It may become the supreme retirement city in the country.
Much of the attraction is a the low cost of living (no income tax, cheap buffets, abundant senior discounts). But these incentives are evaporating. When your electric bill to run the AC 24/7 is $1,500 a month during the summer, it really is a kick in the annuity.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:41:53 PM
permalink
If you bought a house in 1920, in 1940 it would be worth about the same amount, adjusting for inflation. This was true in most parts of the country until after WWII, when there was a housing shortage. The concept of buying a house as an investment is rather new. In the past people would buy a house and live in it and pass it on to their children to live in. Its all about easy credit, and we see where that concept got us.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:52:38 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIn 1870 St. Louis was bigger than Chicago and smaller than only New York City/Brooklyn (who were still separate cities at the time) and Philadelphia. Now St. Louis is not in the top 50 cities in the country. In my mind, St. Louis has fallen faster and further than any other American city. The rate of population decrease has only averaged 1.5% per year since WWII.
It would be unprecedented in American culture for a city to lose 5% to 10% of it's population over a sustained period of time. The city is very attractive to people who are now retiring. It may become the supreme retirement city in the country.
St. Louis didn't just GET that way. They made a business decision to stay married to riverboat traffic for commerce rather than invite train traffic. Chicago invited and attracted train commerce. Hence, Chicago outgrew St. Louis. (Some, including me, would argue that cities and states that cling to outdated things like St. Louis did river traffic ... see also collective bargaining for state workers unions ... will lead to similar long-term economic consequences.)
I don't see Las Vegas as a place that will EVER remain stagnant, so yeah, I think it will recover. As opposed to, say, Detroit. Union states like Ohio, Indiana, New Jersey, and Wisconsin are showing signs of life, but we'll see if the political will to decrease union power remains ...
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:39:17 PM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerbut we'll see if the political will to decrease union power remains ...
It has to continue or we'll go broke. Its what doomed the old Soviet Union. The whole country was essentially just one big workers union. Everybody was guaranteed a job, healthcare, housing, food, a coffin when you died. They eventually ran out of money, which is whats happening to us on a state by state basis. The Soviet Union was such a swell place to live that at any given time 40% of its factory workers were drunk on the job. What did they care, they were paid almost nothing and couldn't be fired.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:45:20 PM
permalink
On a related note, I just got my new assessment. I live in upstate NY. We lead the nation in high taxes, lost jobs and declining population. YET my assessment just went up 33%. Charlie Sheen must be the new town assessor!
Just another good reason to leave the state. I am not looking to make a killing in Vegas, or anywhere else, just a little stability with positive growth and environment.
Just another good reason to leave the state. I am not looking to make a killing in Vegas, or anywhere else, just a little stability with positive growth and environment.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:52:02 PM
permalink
Yeah, it's unions that are the problem. How soon we forget how the middle class was built from unions. We sit here and complain about Obama being a socialist yet the tax rates on the most rich Americans remain very close to the lowest in history. Rather than destroying the middle class and lowering their wages and take away their collective bargaining position, how about taxing the richest Americans who are just getting richer? How about raising taxes in general in order to pay down the enormous debt that America has? Naw. That'll never happen.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:03:26 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboYeah, it's unions that are the problem. How soon we forget how the middle class was built from unions. We sit here and complain about Obama being a socialist yet the tax rates on the most rich Americans remain very close to the lowest in history. Rather than destroying the middle class and lowering their wages and take away their collective bargaining position, how about taxing the richest Americans who are just getting richer? How about raising taxes in general in order to pay down the enormous debt that America has? Naw. That'll never happen.
How much more are you willing to pay? The bottom half of the income scale pays virtually zero. The top 1% pays about 1/3 of all income taxes. We are taxed enough already and if there is an increase it needs to be on the bottom 50% so they quit voting for more big government.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:53:41 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanHow much more are you willing to pay? The bottom half of the income scale pays virtually zero. The top 1% pays about 1/3 of all income taxes. We are taxed enough already and if there is an increase it needs to be on the bottom 50% so they quit voting for more big government.
Although it's pretty likely the bottom 50% paying virtually nothing would trade places in a nanosecond with those at the top paying 1/3 of all income taxes. They would cry all the way to the bank, I expect.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
March 4th, 2011 at 3:18:28 AM
permalink
Let's remain calm
March 4th, 2011 at 4:00:55 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineAlthough it's pretty likely the bottom 50% paying virtually nothing would trade places in a nanosecond with those at the top paying 1/3 of all income taxes. They would cry all the way to the bank, I expect.
Has nothing to do with the point they are paying virtually nothing. Of course the best thing would be to repeal the right of congress to collect an income tax via constitutional ammendment and go to a consumption tax. Then everyone pays and politicians would not be able to run a campaign on punishing one group to help another as in 2004/8.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 4th, 2011 at 4:11:09 AM
permalink
Quote: JIMMYFOCKERLet's remain calm
This business of who is supposed to be paying the taxes is getting to be pretty controversial these days. And, yes, there are elements of class warfare too. It is just as absurd that the lower income earners pay so little as it is that the wealthy pay so little, if both things are true. And who knows? Truth is the first casualty of war, and IMO of contentious debate.
Personally, I think politically it is time for the top earners to pay more. Whether it makes sense otherwise is debatable, according to a certain survey of the world the US tax rate is already the most progressive for top earners. Depends then on who you want to believe?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 4th, 2011 at 4:34:47 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitPersonally, I think politically it is time for the top earners to pay more.
Why? Isn't taking 50% of someone's income at all levels enough for you?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 4th, 2011 at 6:00:39 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitPersonally, I think politically it is time for the top earners to pay more.
Remember what happened last time it was more than 50% ...
NOT good times.
March 4th, 2011 at 6:18:19 AM
permalink
The biggest problem facing Vegas is water, followed closely by smog.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:05:28 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboRather than destroying the middle class and lowering their wages and take away their collective bargaining position, how about taxing the richest Americans who are just getting richer?
Because it's not possible.
Raise taxes enough, and the rich will either 1) pass the increase along to you by raising the prices of their goods or services, 2) flee to a lower tax region, 3) spend millions lobbying for lower taxes, exemptions, deductions, bailout, etc, 4) find massive write-offs, which are very bad for any economy, and lots of other things. A tax increase is little more than a jobs program for accountants and lawyers.
Quote:How about raising taxes in general in order to pay down the enormous debt that America has? Naw. That'll never happen.
How about lowering the debt and stop contrcting more debt? You know, what if the government lived within its means like everyone else?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 4th, 2011 at 7:22:17 AM
permalink
Oh they tax the poor all right: 50% on lottery tickets, up the wazoo on cigarettes and beer and ripple and... If they were truly smart they would legalize and tax reefer and coke. It sure as heck would save a lot of Mexican lives and bankrupt Colombia. Oh well!!
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
March 4th, 2011 at 7:35:06 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy? Isn't taking 50% of someone's income at all levels enough for you?
According to Wikipedia, the top rate is 35%. I think that is roughly high enough, because if you try to go to 40-50% the politicians will start giving them all kinds of crazy shelters and deductions to get it down, at least IMO that is what happened before. In the current political climate it just seems to me a small gesture will have to be made. But I am not a politician so maybe that is not how it works.
It does seem to me that if it is true that 50% of income earners on the lower end pay no taxes, that is not right either.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 4th, 2011 at 8:49:26 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitAccording to Wikipedia, the top rate is 35%. I think that is roughly high enough, because if you try to go to 40-50% the politicians will start giving them all kinds of crazy shelters and deductions to get it down, at least IMO that is what happened before. In the current political climate it just seems to me a small gesture will have to be made. But I am not a politician so maybe that is not how it works.
It does seem to me that if it is true that 50% of income earners on the lower end pay no taxes, that is not right either.
The top *federal* rate is 35%, but I think he might mean the total tax burden, which would include other taxes like property tax, social security, medicare, sales tax, gasoline, etc., etc.
About 4 years ago, I did the exercise of splitting all of my transactions to account for all the taxes, for 4 months (using Quicken). Colossal pain in the ass, but I found out that about 46% of every dollar in the door was taken out in the form of taxes. That particular year, I was in the 33% *federal* bracket. So, if you add the same spread to the 35% bracket, you get 48%, or damn close to 50%.
Ironically, this method hurts the lower incomes the worst ... if you're in the, oh, 10% bracket, your total tax burden more than doubles to about 25%.
EDIT: The "other" tax burden is even more "amazing" when you consider that the federal rate is marginal.
March 4th, 2011 at 9:04:27 AM
permalink
Just some friendly input, let's remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus careful when citing it. (It may be right in this case) just saying.
"In the poker game of life, women are the rake" Edward Norton (Rounders)
March 4th, 2011 at 9:44:11 AM
permalink
Quote: Knuckleball3Just some friendly input, let's remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus careful when citing it. (It may be right in this case) just saying.
I agree but feel I seldom get burned. I find you need to check the history tab to make sure you arent catching some BS with a brief life, when something looks suspicious. Some topics are more subject to error too.
this IRS link indicates 35%
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 4th, 2011 at 8:05:22 PM
permalink
Let's simplify. The government is running a huge deficit at all levels of government. There can be two causes. Not enough revenue, or too much expense. During a recession, you pull in less revenue and have more expenses (paying out more benefits).
As much as people on this forum love Bush, he was never fiscally conservative. You can blame alot of the spending overruns on 9-11 but he had 6 years to reign it in.
When was the last time that America was running surpluses? Under Clinton. Back then, the top marginal tax rate was 39.6 percent for families earning over 283K (in 1999), followed by 36 percent for families earning over 158K (1999). Those rates are now at least 5 points lower. Obama / Bush poured trillions of dollars into resurging the economy. There's a 2 percent break in social security taxes meaning that every employed American earns 2 percent more on their first 106K of income. What a socialist that Obama is.
So, get rid of the tax breaks for the highest earning Americans and bring it back to the Clinton era. Those Americans earning 400K/year can afford it. And cut the social benefits and excess spending at all levels of government. Reign in the deficit. Make the lower end slightly higher (it was 15 percent under Bush Sr.). Stop breaking the unions and get your budget under control some other way.
As much as people on this forum love Bush, he was never fiscally conservative. You can blame alot of the spending overruns on 9-11 but he had 6 years to reign it in.
When was the last time that America was running surpluses? Under Clinton. Back then, the top marginal tax rate was 39.6 percent for families earning over 283K (in 1999), followed by 36 percent for families earning over 158K (1999). Those rates are now at least 5 points lower. Obama / Bush poured trillions of dollars into resurging the economy. There's a 2 percent break in social security taxes meaning that every employed American earns 2 percent more on their first 106K of income. What a socialist that Obama is.
So, get rid of the tax breaks for the highest earning Americans and bring it back to the Clinton era. Those Americans earning 400K/year can afford it. And cut the social benefits and excess spending at all levels of government. Reign in the deficit. Make the lower end slightly higher (it was 15 percent under Bush Sr.). Stop breaking the unions and get your budget under control some other way.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 4th, 2011 at 8:59:04 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo
So, get rid of the tax breaks for the highest earning Americans and bring it back to the Clinton era. .
Oh puleeze, get real. The Clinton 90's were good for 2 reasons. The upsurge and peak of internet businesses, and the gov't forcing the big banks, thru Janet Reno, to make home loans at all levels to people who couldn't afford them. It took 10 years for the inevitable housing collapse to happen, what does Clinton care, he's long gone. Soaking the rich to make up for other mistakes, is itself another blunder. For about a dozen good reasons.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 4th, 2011 at 11:36:09 PM
permalink
Did increasing home ownership actually change the Balance of Payments and ensure that the budget ran into a surplus?
That's a genuine question... I'm just not seeing the cause and effect.
That's a genuine question... I'm just not seeing the cause and effect.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 5th, 2011 at 1:43:50 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitDid increasing home ownership actually change the Balance of Payments and ensure that the budget ran into a surplus?
That's a genuine question... I'm just not seeing the cause and effect.
It contributed to the general booming economy. And there NEVER was a surplus or a balanced budget in the real world, it was all on paper! I can't believe how many times I've explained this on different forums in the last 10 years. It was an accountants trick, smoke and mirrors. Its like you and your wife sitting down and you're in debt and you figure out a budget for the next 15 years. You cut this and get rid of that, you consolidate here and trim there, and voila! If you do everything exactly like its written, you will have a balanced budget and even a surplus over 15 years. If anything unforseen happens that costs money, there goes the budget. Thats exactly what congress did in the late 90's. Its was an inside joke. They all knew there was no way in holy hades anybody was going to stick with their budget or that it covered unforseen things, like wars. But on paper they were spending as much as they were bringing in, IF they followed all the phony rules of the budget. They can't even do a fake balanced budget now, the spending is so far ahead of whats coming in, and the debt is so incredibly high, that no amount of trickery will work.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 5th, 2011 at 4:20:38 AM
permalink
As much as I am intrigued by the little side paths this topic has taken, I still think the original is much more interesting. In brief:
If you need a job, it's probably one of the worst places to go. Unemployment is high and looks to come down slowly. The construction biz has crashed hard and the casino/resort/tourist trade isn't what it used to be, though that's recovering some.
If you already have a job lined up, are retired, or plan to make your own work, then I say it's an OK place to go. The climate is still appealing (for many) and I don't think the real estate prices will go down too much further. Many more fortunes have been built by buying at the bottom (or near it) than buying at the top (or near it). The speculators seem to feel that the bottom is here, and who am I to argue with their money?
Quote: YoyomamaI am thinking of moving and Vegas is an option. Any good reasons to do so?
If you need a job, it's probably one of the worst places to go. Unemployment is high and looks to come down slowly. The construction biz has crashed hard and the casino/resort/tourist trade isn't what it used to be, though that's recovering some.
If you already have a job lined up, are retired, or plan to make your own work, then I say it's an OK place to go. The climate is still appealing (for many) and I don't think the real estate prices will go down too much further. Many more fortunes have been built by buying at the bottom (or near it) than buying at the top (or near it). The speculators seem to feel that the bottom is here, and who am I to argue with their money?
March 5th, 2011 at 5:43:44 AM
permalink
Vegas should be lots of fun for many years to come, no matter the state of the economy in the silver state.
March 5th, 2011 at 5:57:07 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboWhen was the last time that America was running surpluses? Under Clinton. Back then, the top marginal tax rate was 39.6 percent for families earning over 283K (in 1999), followed by 36 percent for families earning over 158K (1999). Those rates are now at least 5 points lower. Obama / Bush poured trillions of dollars into resurging the economy. There's a 2 percent break in social security taxes meaning that every employed American earns 2 percent more on their first 106K of income. What a socialist that Obama is.
You write this as though running a surplus is a good thing--it is not. At the national level, a nation like the USA which uses a fiat currency should be running a small deficit of 1-3% GDP. The suprluses of the Clinton Era meant that the government was taxing at too high of a rate. Even the Russians lowered their top rate to 10% or so and found revenue went up and cheating went down.
Obamna and his supporters who want to raise the top rate are simply mean and greedy.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 5th, 2011 at 7:42:14 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboWhen was the last time that America was running surpluses? Under Clinton.
$17-a-barrel crude oil would make you and me and everyone else here look like economic geniuses. BTW, that also worked for Reagan.
March 5th, 2011 at 7:45:41 AM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerI can only imagine what a crowded hell hole Manhattan was back in those days.
That was when the waves of immigration were roaring in. Multitudes of those people soon left for greener pastures like Brooklyn and the Bronx, and eventually New Jersey and Long Island.
March 5th, 2011 at 12:37:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanYou write this as though running a surplus is a good thing--it is not. At the national level, a nation like the USA which uses a fiat currency should be running a small deficit of 1-3% GDP. The suprluses of the Clinton Era meant that the government was taxing at too high of a rate. Even the Russians lowered their top rate to 10% or so and found revenue went up and cheating went down.
Obamna and his supporters who want to raise the top rate are simply mean and greedy.
If you always run at a small deficit, doesn't that deficit grow over time? Shouldn't the mean be around the 0% mark, so there's very little long term government debt... as servicing debt cost money, and it's empty money as well... it's not money that provides anything to the citizens of the country (well except those lending that money).
Much like your home budget... running that at a 1-3% deficit over 30 years wouldn't be a good thing... or would it?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
