the housing market

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:57 pm

rylan wrote:No no, its a Utopia under the socialist dreamland where everyone has the same thing regardless of how hard they work! ;)


I see someone isn't familiar with having nothing regardless of how hard they work...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:01 pm

Sarvis wrote:But I thought under the free market everything would be a Utopia?

/duck


There is no such thing as Utopia.. nothing is perfect. The free market is the fairest way to order our lives. Anything other than the free market means that some preferred group is being given an advantage over another less preferred one by the government. Of course, life isn't fair.. and some people work hard and never get noticed, and others kiss a little ass and become CEO. Others are born rich and never have to work a day of their lives. But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.

In this case, an argument can be made that this string of bubles we have had.. stock market and then credit/housing, results from lax policies of the Fed, which itself is a monopoly organization created by government. I don't know enough about the subject to really come to such a conclusion.. but if true it wouldn't be the first time that the good intentions of government end up having unintended and detrimental consequences.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:09 pm

Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.


And how would, for instance, socialized medicine not be treating everyone the same? Everyone pays taxes, and everyone has access to the same basic level of healthcare.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:38 pm

Corth wrote:But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.

Disagree. The strongest moral argument is ensuring that all of your citizens are provided with the basic essentials they need to survive. If you fail to accomplish that, you fail as a society.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:01 pm

I don't know, Corth. Free market economies, on paper, are fair; however, given the context of this government and how it gives most incentives to people who already have money, they have destroyed the playing field. Add in the reletively recent globalization of economies, the free market ends up screwing the little guy. Yes, you should be able to work hard and make it. And, in a free market, you are supposedly able to do this; but, do you honestly believe that the free market hasn't been disfigured far beyond its initial intentions that it is still a level playing field? Power has been shifted to the few and they are making sure it stays this way. In the free market society, those with power have a clear advantage over the little guy. The guy that loses out to walmart because he is incapable of competing, will always lose. That is not fair in the strict sense of the term. In his case, there is absolutely nothing he can do to compete in a playing field where competition is the suppsed equalizer. And if you've taken any economics courses (which you assuredly have) you will remember that price dropping ends up hurting the ones that need the price drop to compete with the big boys.

To me, the equalization that the free market was intended to create was lost long ago when you started to see the emergence of the notable corperations (walmart, microsoft, exxon, time/warner, etc..). In the economy we have today, competition is the enemy of the little guy and the friend of the big guy. It has stopped functioning the way it was intended.

As to socialized heathcare... I'm all for it, obviously. I believe that all taxpayers should have access to the bare necessities of life. Housing, healthcare, education. As it stands now, free education is a joke in my state (we end up paying for it somehow). The closest thing to socialized healthcare is so hard to get, most people will be dead by the time they jump through all the beurocratic hoops and qualify. And those in subsidized housing in this town pay very close to the same as those outside of the subsidized complexes. We pay taxes to a government to look out for our best interests... they aren't doing that at all. I'm honestly too scared to look at where exactly my tax dollars go to... it sure as hell isn't the public education system, social security, medicaid/medicare, or roads (yeah, that was outsourced recently here in indiana too).
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:06 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.


And how would, for instance, socialized medicine not be treating everyone the same? Everyone pays taxes, and everyone has access to the same basic level of healthcare.


Well first off, the government discriminates against people who earn more than others by charging a higher marginal tax rate. Thus, right away the so-called 'rich', who are often middle class two-income wager earners, pay a higher share of everyone else's healthcare. Second, it discriminates against people who might otherwise choose to save their money instead of purchasing healthcare. It compels them to pay higher taxes and participate in a socialized welfare program. Perhaps they would rather take their chances and use that money for another purpose?

I won't even get into the moral hazard inherent in universal healthcare, as that is off topic since we are talking about socialism being discriminatory, not socialism encouraging poor use of resources.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:08 pm

Ragorn wrote:Disagree. The strongest moral argument is ensuring that all of your citizens are provided with the basic essentials they need to survive. If you fail to accomplish that, you fail as a society.


I agree Ragorn. I just believe it is MY responsibility to do so, whether it be by donating money to organizations to aid those that lack the basic essentials, or doing it myself. If you educate people correctly, they will see the pleasure and benefits in helping others. BUT, it is not something that should be FORCED on me by others.

Coincidentally, aren't you the guys who don't want any religion forced on you by the government in prayers and such?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:16 pm

Kifle wrote: but, do you honestly believe that the free market hasn't been disfigured far beyond its initial intentions that it is still a level playing field?


Its only been disgured to the extent that socialistic entitlements and redistribution of wealth have done their magic.

Ragorn:

Thats the essential rebuttal to my argument. Ultimately its the battle of the interests of individuals vs. society. I tend to believe that you treat the individually fairly, let him be productive in an environment that allows him to reap the rewards of his hard work, and society will flourish. The opposing viewpoint is that the individual must be compelled (I'm being diplomatic, the more accurate word would be 'coerced') into providing for the many, for the good of society, and in doing so sublimate his own self-interests. Its one of those big questions that are debated for thousands of years and you still never get a definite answer.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:21 pm

Corth wrote:
Kifle wrote: but, do you honestly believe that the free market hasn't been disfigured far beyond its initial intentions that it is still a level playing field?


Its only been disgured to the extent that socialistic entitlements and redistribution of wealth have done their magic.



?

You mean like in France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, England? And by magic do you mean showing how much better their governments take care of the essentials of life and make the flaws of free market even more noticable. Yeah, they've sure done their magic. I mean, it's hard to find rich people in those countries too. Damn taxes taking away from the rich /sarcasm.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:40 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.


And how would, for instance, socialized medicine not be treating everyone the same? Everyone pays taxes, and everyone has access to the same basic level of healthcare.


Well first off, the government discriminates against people who earn more than others by charging a higher marginal tax rate. Thus, right away the so-called 'rich', who are often middle class two-income wager earners, pay a higher share of everyone else's healthcare. Second, it discriminates against people who might otherwise choose to save their money instead of purchasing healthcare. It compels them to pay higher taxes and participate in a socialized welfare program. Perhaps they would rather take their chances and use that money for another purpose?

I won't even get into the moral hazard inherent in universal healthcare, as that is off topic since we are talking about socialism being discriminatory, not socialism encouraging poor use of resources.


You should check the numbers Corth, the wealthy do not pay the largest share of total taxes in the country. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=154 ... sequence=0) The top 1% pay only 15-20% of the total taxes. Yes, those numbers are old... but I suspect they've gotten worse.

As for the tax rate, yes it is higher... bat that doesn't mean it is unfair. For instance, the so-called "flat tax" end up being discriminatory to the poor as any sensible rate takes too much money away from them to allow for their basic necessities.

The other thing you have to consider is how much wealth they control:

Just to give you an idea of current inequality, statistically speaking, the top 1 percent of all income
earners in this great land earn roughly 20 percent of the total income. The top 1 percent of wealth
holders have close to one-third of all wealth. The top 5 percent of wealth holders have very roughly 50
percent of all wealth in this country.


How would it be discriminatory to have the people WITH 50% of the money pay 50% of the taxes?

If anything, we need to tweak the numbers to they are more fair.



As for people saving their money instead of getting healthcare... well, sorry but that just isn't discrimination. It's still treating them the same as everyone else, even if it is taking away an option. Of course, it isn't taking away an option either. They can still save, and honestly considering the costs of our current healthcare system compared to other socialized systems they could quite possibly save more than they would if they ever were forced to get healthcare. (Perhaps while bleeding to death from a car accident.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:57 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Coincidentally, aren't you the guys who don't want any religion forced on you by the government in prayers and such?


Yes. Incidentally, we're also the guys who can look at the individual merits of something and decide based on that.

Government Sponsored Religion got us:
Inquisitions
Prolonged Dark Ages
Crusades
Taxes
Tithes

Taxes got us:
A Highway system which improves commerce, thus strengthening our economy
An education system which gives us skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy
A welfare system which lessens incidences of destitution, thus keeping our population on it's feet until the economy needs more workers... thus strengthening our economy.
An army capable of defending our country from any army.

As for taxes even being force... well, keep reading.

The opposing viewpoint is that the individual must be compelled (I'm being diplomatic, the more accurate word would be 'coerced')


Oh Corth, you silly Libertarian. Until you reject the very ideals our country was founded on, you cannot claim taxes as coercion.

You have to remember, we have a roughly democratic government in this country. If we pay taxes for something, it is because a majority of voters wanted us to. Those of us voting for socialized medicine is <b>choosing</b> to "[provide] for the many, for the good of society, and in doing so sublimate his own self-interests." If you reject that democratically made choice as coercion, you must reject our system of government out of hand as it is inherently coercive. Some Libertarians will call this the "Tyrrany of the Many."

Perhaps it is, but I maintain that a Tyrrany of the Many is far superior to a Tyrrany of the Few.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:11 am

Kifle wrote:We pay taxes to a government to look out for our best interests... they aren't doing that at all. I'm honestly too scared to look at where exactly my tax dollars go to... it sure as hell isn't the public education system, social security, medicaid/medicare, or roads (yeah, that was outsourced recently here in indiana too).


Very good points Kifle, including the parts before it. And I fully agree, that's the basic problem. You are FOR socialized medicine, but realize that you have no idea what the government will do with YOUR tax money. That's the BASIC flaw with socializing medicine.

Kifle wrote:You mean like in France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, England?


Careful though Kifle, many of those countries have recently been registering in the past few years huge amounts of citizens leaving the country to find work or retire elsewhere. That does not speak highly of them at all. And look at all the trouble some of the countries on that list have had lately due to the huge amount of immigrants seeking some of that free stuff. You only see half the story on the MSM. I have many friends and family living in Spain and France who have either left, or are completely at odds with the current situation. I have two good friends in Spain with the equivalent of Master's degrees unable to get good jobs. They cannot afford to buy ANY property in their cities, and are still living with their parents, both 30+.

Sarvis wrote:An education system which gives us skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy
A welfare system which lessens incidences of destitution, thus keeping our population on it's feet until the economy needs more workers... thus strengthening our economy.


Which education system gives us skilled workers? Are you referring to Japan or South Korea? Or do you mean the Mexican system? Obviously you don't mean the current system here in the US.

And I think you meant to write "maintains" instead of writing "lessens". The basic argument for welfare is a good one Sarvis, one that any society should have, but the implementation of it as it stands is unacceptable.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:28 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I agree Ragorn. I just believe it is MY responsibility to do so, whether it be by donating money to organizations to aid those that lack the basic essentials, or doing it myself. If you educate people correctly, they will see the pleasure and benefits in helping others. BUT, it is not something that should be FORCED on me by others.

And in a perfect society, the government wouldn't need to mandate the welfare of the citizens because the citizens would take care of each other.

Do you believe that's the society we live in? Is America intrinscally altruistic or materialistic?

Coincidentally, aren't you the guys who don't want any religion forced on you by the government in prayers and such?

Religion is not an issue of health. You can make bullshit metaphors about spiritual health and the "necessity" of religion, but at the end of the day, I've never seen cause of death listed as "not enough jesus."

Food, medicine, clean air, pure water, shelter... these things are essential to sustain life. It's our government's responsibility to provide us with these essentials. It's also their responsibility to provide us with a very small number of non-essential services which are important to the sustenance of the community... infrastructure (roads), education, military defense. Many of these non-essentials are laid out for us in the constitution by name.

Religion doesn't fit into any of those categories.

Thats the essential rebuttal to my argument. Ultimately its the battle of the interests of individuals vs. society. I tend to believe that you treat the individually fairly, let him be productive in an environment that allows him to reap the rewards of his hard work, and society will flourish. The opposing viewpoint is that the individual must be compelled (I'm being diplomatic, the more accurate word would be 'coerced') into providing for the many, for the good of society, and in doing so sublimate his own self-interests. Its one of those big questions that are debated for thousands of years and you still never get a definite answer.

It's why we pick sides. And if all individuals were equally endowed and equally capable, I'd be more amenable to "throw them in the water and let them swim." But we have individuals who are unable to sustain themselves for various reasons... poor health, old age, extraordinary circumstance (Katrina victims?). It's our duty to care and provide for them. It's unfortunate that certain individuals must be "compelled" to do so.

And oddly enough, the political party that opposes social distribution of wealth is the same one that preaches morality, compassion, and family values. Hmm.

The fact that I support public welfare doesn't mean that I agree with a crack momma having six kids to sustain the welfare payments. Social welfare isn't universal, and our responsibility isn't absolute. A distinction should be made between unable to sustain oneself and unwilling to do so. The crack momma, the high school dropout who does nothing but smoke weed and play xbox, the immigrant who comes to our country and signs up for unemployment before employment... that's where we draw our line.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:37 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I have two good friends in Spain with the equivalent of Master's degrees unable to get good jobs. They cannot afford to buy ANY property in their cities, and are still living with their parents, both 30+.


Yeah, a lot of us could probably name people like that in this country too...


Sarvis wrote:Which education system gives us skilled workers?


Funny. Yes, our system is lacking... butover time it has certainly led us to be the chief innovators in many fields, and the most economically powerful country in the world. Name a country without a public education system that isn't a 3rd world country.

Are you referring to Japan or South Korea?


Careful there, South Korea's system is pretty socialist!

My point isn't that any of our particular systems are perfect, but that they have paved the way for our current economic status and all our progress.

And I think you meant to write "maintains" instead of writing "lessens".


No, I don't. A welfare mother choosing to live that way is not destitute. A guy sleeping in the street is destitute. A woman raising her kids out of a car, eating garbage is destitute.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:49 am

Is it moral to penalize those that are successful? Do those that are lazy deserve money from those that have actually earned it? Is it possible to figure out who are lazy and who are "unable to sustain themselves"? Is it moral for those that don't produce and have not saved to expect as much as those that have? What is the moral hazard of taking care of those that do not save, manage their assets, and end up blowing their cash?

I believe those that work hard, many doing 50 to 100 hour weeks deserve to live better. They are the ones that sacrifice in order to acheive a goal of having a successful life. They give up their time, friends and family in order to reach their goals. More people should be like that instead of lazy people that barely work 40 hour weeks and don't want any stress.

Socialism and Communism are wrong because they take away the incentive to be successful. Differentiation is what drives people go that extra mile. Our country has been the most successful over the last few hundred years because we embrace that drive. If anything, capitalism is what makes it possible for the little guy to be a success!

Finally, income taxes do not penalize the rich. They hurt those that seek to become rich. There is an important difference. If you are really against the rich, then you want to look at estate taxes instead of income taxes.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:06 am

Let me give you an example of how treating everyone equally is unfair.

With the housing mess, Congress and the President are talking about making changes. One of those changes would be allowing lower credit quality people to get GSE loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Republicans are proposing that the lower credit quality people pay a higher private mortgage insurance to adjust for having a low credit score. The Democrats want to charge an equal amount of PMI insurance across the board to make it "fair". Most people would say that charging those with higher credit scores more to make up for those with low credit scores is unfair. Thoughts?
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:11 am

Finally for those of you for socialized medicine, we are already getting a preview of this from what some health insurance plans are doing. Many are getting ready to start deducting from employees' pay if their Body Mass Index is too high (Fat) or if their cholesterol, blood pressure, or sugar are too high. This will only get worse if it is run by the government implementing plans like England and other socialist countries that penalize people for eating foods that the State deems bad for them. Just read "1984" or even watch "Demolition Man" for what happens when we allow the State to control us.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:30 am

Lathander wrote:Is it moral to penalize those that are successful? Do those that are lazy deserve money from those that have actually earned it?


You realize that applies more to heirs like Paris Hilton than to a good portion of the lower class, right?

I believe those that work hard, many doing 50 to 100 hour weeks deserve to live better.


Yeah, well you just described a whole lot of "3-jobs just to pay the bills" families out there.

More people should be like that instead of lazy people that barely work 40 hour weeks and don't want any stress.


Because life is definately about work, and if you don't work more than you spend time with your family you don't deserve basic necessities! Fuck that, from now on anyone who doesn't work at least 90 hours a week shouldn't be allowed to own a home or rent an apartment. A trailer might be ok, but it should have holes in the wall!

You know what, not worth it.

One more comment:

Finally for those of you for socialized medicine, we are already getting a preview of this from what some health insurance plans are doing.


If you ever want to be taken seriously, you should consider NOT pointing out a problem with a PRIVATE COMPANY as if it were caused by Socialism.

For that matter, you should also not post a source saying Canada's healthcare system is better than ours as proof that it isn't. But I guess this ship has saild on both...

Go write an area or something, at least that way you're useful to society.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:31 am

Just because I think I want a Corth sign too :P

Disclaimer: Sarvis is the best friend I've had in the mud, but we can have disagreements on the BBS. (He's usually the one that makes me come back out of retirement)

Sarvis wrote: Taxes got us:
A Highway system which improves commerce, thus strengthening our economy


Thus creating more pollution and global warming? Damned Taxes are killing our environment. (remember, I work in the trucking industry so I am a bit biased about that).

Sarvis wrote:An education system which gives us skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy


Correction... gave skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy. Things were going quite well until Bush decided to try his hand at socialism and make sure that there was "No Child Left Behind." Now, teachers are making sure that every student gets the same education by teaching to the lowest possible level.

Sarvis wrote:A welfare system which lessens incidences of destitution, thus keeping our population on it's feet until the economy needs more workers... thus strengthening our economy.


I will concede the point that the welfare system occasionally works to strengthen the economy. But to be honest, the only time I have seen it work in that manner is when it not being used by the people for which it was intended. The young couple in graduate school (who could be making a combined $90k per year) use it to make sure their child has healthcare while they finish school or the small business owner who can't quite afford insurance on his kids because his earnings are taxed to high hell are making use of welfare in the manner for which I think it should have been designed, not in the manner for which it was. Those are the type of people who end up strengthening the economy from being on welfare. Wal-Mart is never going to run out of high-school students or retirees looking for some supplemental income. Keeping people on welfare as "bench strength" for jobs like that is ludicrous.

Sarvis wrote:An army capable of defending our country from any army.


I've always found it odd that we have a "volunteer" armed forces, but we pay them. I don't know what to make of this except to say that with the freedom to bear arms outlined in the constitution, I think the populace of the United States could probably defend the country just fine. No offense to those of us in this community who are in the armed forces, for I respect you all for the choice you have made. But (this is pulling on my own experiences and family) most smart people don't join the military; which makes them available to defend the country. We actually have a better guerilla force than Iraq could ever hope to have.

There are most definitely areas where Sarvis and I will agree, but how our tax dollars are spent won't be one of them. There are definitely areas where Corth and I will agree, but Supreme Court Justices won't be one of them. There are areas where Kiryan and I agree, but mixing morality with the country's policies won't be one of them.

Seriously though, our country is hosed until the time when candidates can stand up and say what they honestly think without worrying about how much money their party is going to throw to their opponent. Some day, I would like to go back to the era of Lincoln and Douglass. Two men who are ultimately qualified for the position and actually have to stand up for something. Kerry, Bush, Gore, all they ever had to do is stand up and say "I'm NOT like him!" and the American public has eaten it alive....we have learned to suck as a democracy. We have learned to speak the party line, puke the party schpiel, and give money to the party candidate. I wish we were smart enough to say SCREW THE PARTY.

At least consider voting.
Last edited by Vigis on Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:33 am

The free market v. socialism is a perfectly good debate.. but perhaps someone should start a new thread. Discussion about the housing market does not have to be politically charged, and may be of some practical benefit to people.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:44 am

Sarvis wrote:Yeah, a lot of us could probably name people like that in this country too...


But here Sarvis it's more a case of too many people having received degrees due to a sense of entitlement that has crippled the education system throughout the country. In many countries that is not the case, yet.

Sarvis wrote:Funny. Yes, our system is lacking... butover time it has certainly led us to be the chief innovators in many fields, and the most economically powerful country in the world. Name a country without a public education system that isn't a 3rd world country.


We barely made the top 20 list Sarvis, that's pathetic. Hungary beat us...

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I agree Ragorn. I just believe it is MY responsibility to do so, whether it be by donating money to organizations to aid those that lack the basic essentials, or doing it myself. If you educate people correctly, they will see the pleasure and benefits in helping others. BUT, it is not something that should be FORCED on me by others.


Ragorn wrote:And in a perfect society, the government wouldn't need to mandate the welfare of the citizens because the citizens would take care of each other. Do you believe that's the society we live in?


I believe that's the society we can make, yes. If you teach responsibility, leadership, and service, you'll get more people who also believe in that society and strive to get there, without being forced into doing so.

Ragorn wrote:Is America intrinscally altruistic or materialistic?


I believe it is more intrinsically altruistic and materialistic than many other countries. How many billions of dollars do citizens each year donate to different charities & organizations throughout the country and the world? With more money comes more materialism also, sad, but true. Yet look at Bill Gates, and so many others that have donated millions to different health organizations or ones that help the poor.

Ragorn wrote:And oddly enough, the political party that opposes social distribution of wealth is the same one that preaches morality, compassion, and family values. Hmm.


That's because not stealing is also part of morality.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:51 am

Corth wrote:The free market v. socialism is a perfectly good debate.. but perhaps someone should start a new thread. Discussion about the housing market does not have to be politically charged, and may be of some practical benefit to people.


I've got to agree with Corth here. I was really only plugging through the thread because of the title and thought I might pick up a bit of knowledge (which by the way I did).

Funny thing is, I don't know any group as diverse and highly educated as this one.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'



Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:02 am

Vigis wrote:Just because I think I want a Corth sign too :P

Disclaimer: Sarvis is the best friend I've had in the mud, but we can have disagreements on the BBS. (He's usually the one that makes me come back out of retirement)


Awww... shucks. Although, that's kind of sad considering the last time I really played... :(


Sarvis wrote:
Thus creating more pollution and global warming? Damned Taxes are killing our environment. (remember, I work in the trucking industry so I am a bit biased about that).


Ever see Ice Road Truckers? The absence of roads wouldn't stop shipping, it would just mean more breakdowns, rougher trips and more gas used. Roads make things more efficient, therefore lessen the amount of pollution. :P



Sarvis wrote:Correction... gave skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy. Things were going quite well until Bush decided to try his hand at socialism and make sure that there was "No Child Left Behind." Now, teachers are making sure that every student gets the same education by teaching to the lowest possible level.


As I mentioned earlier, I was speaking historically. Having a public education system got us where we are today, even if politics have ruined the current system.

Don't put the label of Socialism on everything you disagree with, though. NCLB is not Socialist, it's just stupid.


I will concede the point that the welfare system occasionally works to strengthen the economy. But to be honest, the only time I have seen it work in that manner is when it not being used by the people for which it was intended. The young couple in graduate school (who could be making a combined $90k per year) use it to make sure their child has healthcare while they finish school or the small business owner who can't quite afford insurance on his kids because his earnings are taxed to high hell are making use of welfare in the manner for which I think it should have been designed, not in the manner for which it was. Those are the type of people who end up strengthening the economy from being on welfare. Wal-Mart is never going to run out of high-school students or retirees looking for some supplemental income. Keeping people on welfare as "bench strength" for jobs like that is ludicrous.


And what about the children of people whose factory moved overseas? Keeping them alive and giving them a chance at an education doesn't help the economy?

Again, our current system sucks... but it could be better and we should work towards improvement instead of abandonment.


I've always found it odd that we have a "volunteer" armed forces, but we pay them.


Well duh. Who would volunteer to get shot at without getting paid?

I don't know what to make of this except to say that with the freedom to bear arms outlined in the constitution, I think the populace of the United States could probably defend the country just fine.



Except that other countries have tanks, too. I don't feel like looking it up, but apparently there was a small island once that some Libertarians tried to set up a nation on. Some other small island (Burma?) invaded and took them over rapidly, with their grand army of <i>one ship</i>.



No offense to those of us in this community who are in the armed forces, for I respect you all for the choice you have made. But (this is pulling on my own experiences and family) most smart people don't join the military; which makes them available to defend the country. We actually have a better guerilla force than Iraq could ever hope to have.


Except that Iraqis shoot things all the time, rather than sit in their basement playing WoW or TorilMUD. Seriously, if <i>we're</i> the country's defence force... we're screwed!

There are most definitely areas where Sarvis and I will agree, but how our tax dollars are spent won't be one of them.


I'm not happy with how our money is spent either, but these are things money should be spent on. There's a lot of pork and beuracracy that need to be cut out of the system, so that the money can actually go to these programs and be utilized properly.

Seriously though, our country is hosed until the time when candidates can stand up and say what they honestly think without worrying about how much money their party is going to throw to their opponent. Some day, I would like to go back to the era of Lincoln and Douglass. Two men who are ultimately qualified for the position and actually have to stand up for something. Kerry, Bush, Gore, all they ever had to do is stand up and say "I'm NOT like him!" and the American public has eaten it alive....we have learned to suck as a democracy. We have learned to speak the party line, puke the party schpiel, and give money to the party candidate. I wish we were smart enough to say SCREW THE PARTY.

At least consider voting.


Agreed.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:05 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That's because not stealing is also part of morality.


You need to go back and read one of my replies to Corth. If you want to argue that taxes are theft, you have to argue against our entire system of government as a coercive force.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:13 am

Government is by definition coercive. Laws regulate our actions. I am coerced into driving 55MPH on the highway under threat of fine. I am coerced into paying my taxes under penalty of imprisonment and fine. In some states, I am coerced into not murdering someone under penalty of death. The coercive nature of government is necessary for it to be effective.

In many cases the coercion is warranted. But don't ever fail to recognize what it is.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:30 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That's because not stealing is also part of morality.

Taxation is stealing? Remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran.

Anyway, yeah. This thread is producing too many words for me to keep up with anyway :P
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:32 am

Corth wrote:Government is by definition coercive. Laws regulate our actions. I am coerced into driving 55MPH on the highway under threat of fine. I am coerced into paying my taxes under penalty of imprisonment and fine. In some states, I am coerced into not murdering someone under penalty of death. The coercive nature of government is necessary for it to be effective.

In many cases the coercion is warranted. But don't ever fail to recognize what it is.


So are you saying we don't have a say in what laws govern us, or that deciding what laws we are governed by is still being coerced?

Yes, Government needs the threat of force/imprisonment/fine to be effective. However that does not make it coercive. We decide, through voting, what the government does. The Republicans are learning that as we speak.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Corth wrote:The free market v. socialism is a perfectly good debate.. but perhaps someone should start a new thread. Discussion about the housing market does not have to be politically charged, and may be of some practical benefit to people.


Wholeheartedly agree. I was actually learning practical stuff before it got derailed (think I might be guilty here :() And, as much as I like a good political debate, I'd like to see the thoughts of the original thread continued a bit. Someone should make another socialism vs free market thread.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:19 pm

Sarvis wrote:So are you saying we don't have a say in what laws govern us, or that deciding what laws we are governed by is still being coerced?


Yes.

This year, our representatives here in Florida were talking about getting rid of property taxes in favor of raising sales tax (the logical solution). People had their hopes up, I was extremely excited about going out and voting. When they finished their "talks", all talks of sales tax vanished, and now it's just about either keeping the 3% rule on property tax assessments, or choosing a higher homestead exemption, and negating the 3% cover permanently.

...
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:49 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:So are you saying we don't have a say in what laws govern us, or that deciding what laws we are governed by is still being coerced?


Yes.

This year, our representatives here in Florida were talking about getting rid of property taxes in favor of raising sales tax (the logical solution). People had their hopes up, I was extremely excited about going out and voting. When they finished their "talks", all talks of sales tax vanished, and now it's just about either keeping the 3% rule on property tax assessments, or choosing a higher homestead exemption, and negating the 3% cover permanently.

...


Yet next election season you will re-elect the same leadership.

You COULD protest, write letters to the representatives and even run for office yourself on your own platform or move somewhere with better leadership.

Instead you whine about it on the web and act like you are being forced, when in reality you agree to live under the laws passed by your elected representatives and keep voting for the people who do these things.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:41 pm

Sarvis wrote:Yet next election season you will re-elect the same leadership.

You COULD protest, write letters to the representatives and even run for office yourself on your own platform or move somewhere with better leadership.

Instead you whine about it on the web and act like you are being forced, when in reality you agree to live under the laws passed by your elected representatives and keep voting for the people who do these things.


Isn't this what you have been doing all along in all threads too? I mean, come on now.

I have never re-elected someone who fails to represent my beliefs. I have emailed or phoned different congressmen when the need has arisen, as I did now. I just did it this past week regarding a tax increase to our satellite provider.

Please... It's like me saying that you voted twice for Bush.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:00 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Yet next election season you will re-elect the same leadership.

You COULD protest, write letters to the representatives and even run for office yourself on your own platform or move somewhere with better leadership.

Instead you whine about it on the web and act like you are being forced, when in reality you agree to live under the laws passed by your elected representatives and keep voting for the people who do these things.


Isn't this what you have been doing all along in all threads too? I mean, come on now.

I have never re-elected someone who fails to represent my beliefs. I have emailed or phoned different congressmen when the need has arisen, as I did now. I just did it this past week regarding a tax increase to our satellite provider.

Please... It's like me saying that you voted twice for Bush.


"You" can be used as a collective, you know.

And while I have been bitching in these threads, I do not claim it is theft when I'm taxed by Bush nor that we were coerced into invading Iraq. That is the difference. I can speak out against our leadership, against the beliefs of those who voted against me, and against policy... but to say it is unlawful or immoral is just plain wrong.

We did vote twice for Bush, collectively. He is our elected leader, and part of being an American is to abide by his decisions as the leader until such time as we can replace him or convince him otherwise.

In short, taxes are not theft. We pay taxes because we get representation in what taxes are collected and how they are spent.

The Founding Fathers Libertarians are so fond of quoting had a slogan. It was not "No Taxation" but rather "No Taxation <i>Without Representation</i>.

The former could be considered theft, the latter is not.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:59 pm

Sarvis wrote:In short, taxes are not theft. We pay taxes because we get representation in what taxes are collected and how they are spent.

The Founding Fathers Libertarians are so fond of quoting had a slogan. It was not "No Taxation" but rather "No Taxation <i>Without Representation</i>.

The former could be considered theft, the latter is not.


Well said. But let me clear one thing, because I don't think it was stated before, my bad.

It's not taxation I'm against, nor is that the case with many other people who complain over taxes. That's just a simplistic, easy, and erroneous excuse many take to criticize us/them. And it's not the representative form of government either. It's representation without representation that I'm against. It's taxation without explanation, authorization, or rationalization that I'm against. You can be sure our founding fathers would have said exactly the same thing.

If we could just put on tax on sales, I would be masturbating with bliss. I don't care if it's at 40%, and I'd be paying almost $2.00 for a can of Coke. The ones with more more with still be buying more, and the opposite for this without, so the tax would work fine in theory, less tax on the poor, more on the rich, but based on something JUST, not how much my house costs or how much I make a year. All this does is maintain the middle class in the middle, and recently, push it towards the lower class.

It's paying taxes for a public education system that is a joke, for example. And so, I'm dumping $2-3k of my hard-earned money each year to pay for the abusive education of a child (re: barely made 20th worldwide). Many mistake the results as indicative that socialist countries have better educational systems. I disagree. Look at the USA's educational system before the 1960s, it was fantastic, and churned out some of the greatest thinkers and innovators. Our problem is a poorly run system with a new, disastrous and, I daresay, abusive mentality on how to 'educate' children. I'm a teacher, I know exactly of what I speak in this regard.

Just an example anyways..

Just clearing it so people don't think it's against taxes, but against taxing things the government shouldn't be.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:11 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Well said. But let me clear one thing, because I don't think it was stated before, my bad.


It's not taxation I'm against, nor is that the case with many other people who complain over taxes.


I think we were confused with this statement: "That's because not stealing is also part of morality" as a reply to Ragorn's "social redistribution of wealth" comment, which was essentially a fancy way of saying taxes.

For the record, there ARE people who consider taxes as flat-out theft and are against them under any circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, I think we more or less agree...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:18 am

Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I think we were confused with this statement: "That's because not stealing is also part of morality" as a reply to Ragorn's "social redistribution of wealth" comment, which was essentially a fancy way of saying taxes.

Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.

More on this story as news develops.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:43 am

Ragorn wrote:I've never seen cause of death listed as "not enough jesus."


Ragorn wrote:Taxation is stealing? Remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran.


Ragorn wrote:Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.


Good point Ragorn...yeah.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:11 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Ragorn wrote:I've never seen cause of death listed as "not enough jesus."


Ragorn wrote:Taxation is stealing? Remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran.


Ragorn wrote:Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.


Good point Ragorn...yeah.

Yeah. The problem with Republicans is, they're the first ones clamoring for more wars in more countries, they're the first ones giving themselves tax breaks, and then they're the first ones blaming Democrats when it comes time to pay for the horrible damage they've done to the economy.

So remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran. I've had enough of you whiny conservatives shrieking about how HITLARY will RAISE UR TAXES when we're flushing $1.5b a week in Iraq.

Let me know when this gets sensational enough for you.

Also, this is the wrong time to buy a house.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:50 am

ok to get back on thread.

i been reading about flippers taking money out of their primary home to buy property in mexico. they have to make hugh deposit and now they are upside down. they are just trying to get to trying to sell to just break even, cuz they can't make the payments anymore.

anyways, i bring this up cuz i'm curious as to what you guys think about offshore RE.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:57 am

term life insurance is cheaper, but when it's over and you dont die you get nothing.

whole life, you pay a little more and a little coverage, but the extra money is invested for you and you can take the money out.

why would you pick term?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:08 am

Ragorn wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I think we were confused with this statement: "That's because not stealing is also part of morality" as a reply to Ragorn's "social redistribution of wealth" comment, which was essentially a fancy way of saying taxes.

Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.

More on this story as news develops.


Yes, and just as often Libertarians actually mean it.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:56 am

sok wrote:term life insurance is cheaper, but when it's over and you dont die you get nothing.

whole life, you pay a little more and a little coverage, but the extra money is invested for you and you can take the money out.

why would you pick term?


You actually pay a lot more for whole than term. And the return on term life is much crappier than you could do investing the money yourself in a 401k or IRA. Insurance is a notoriously poor investment vehicle (same with annuities in almost all circumstances... don't put money into an annuity).
Life insurance should be thought of similar to car insurance... you pay it and hope you don't need to use it, but its there in case you do. It should be income replacement for those who need it in your family to pay off the house/bills etc.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:15 pm

Life insurance should take care of your funeral arrangements, and possibly the taxes on your estate. It isn't there to give your beneficiaries a windfall when you die. If you "invest" in life insurance as a way to take care of your children after you die, you're going to get a lower return than if you had rolled that money into other options.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:54 pm

I wouldn't necessarily say that life insurance is just for funeral expenses and taxes. I recently obtained a 20 year term policy worth about 10x my annual income. Why? I have a baby on the way. If something were to happen I don't want my wife stuck raising a kid solely on her income. The term will end after my child reaches adulthood and (hopefully) no longer needs support from my income.

Ragorn's explanation about why whole life doesn't make sense is about right. The additional money you are paying for the 'whole life' policy, invested otherwise, will generally result in a greater net return over time.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:19 am

Income replacement and estate planning. That is why you buy life insurance.

No one commented on the PMI proposal by the Democrats to raise it for everyone instead of on those with the worst credit which represents a risk.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:42 am

Lathander wrote:Income replacement and estate planning. That is why you buy life insurance.

No one commented on the PMI proposal by the Democrats to raise it for everyone instead of on those with the worst credit which represents a risk.


Probably because this is a REAL ESTATE thread, not life insurance. The only reason life insurance was brought up was because... well, I can't remember, but it was on track with investments. Go make your own thread if you want to pick a fight with the left wing.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 am

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-h ... ome-center

Southern California home sales tumbled to a 15-year low in August but the median home price continued to rise despite mounting industry woes, data released today show.

--------------------------------

the question i have is why not wait til this thing bottom out and then buy?

also, i read about realtors who jack up the price and give you money back. ex. house is worth 450k. they sell for 500k and give you 50k back ("to do as you wish").
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:45 am

Lathander wrote:Income replacement and estate planning. That is why you buy life insurance.

No one commented on the PMI proposal by the Democrats to raise it for everyone instead of on those with the worst credit which represents a risk.


Perhaps it's because you've lost all credibility to the point where it's not even interesting to discuss anything with you?

Nah. Couldn't. Just because you're less coherent than Teflor, and do things like interpret charging the same amount to everyone as charging one group more than the other.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:56 am

That example you bring up, Sok, sounds a lot like loan fraud.

Lets say you want to buy a house for $480,000.00 and finance 100% of the purchase price and the closing costs while the bank will only lend you 90$ of the purchase price. Lets assume closing costs are $20,000 so the true cost of the purchase is $500,000. You execute a phony contract of sale with the seller for $600,000. The bank will let you borrow 90% of the sale price, which means you can get a $540,000 mortgage. You get a fraudulent appraisal of the house of $600,000 justifying the mortgage. At the closing, $20,000 of the $540,000 bank proceeds go towards closing costs, and the remainder, $520,000 go to the seller. The seller then cuts you a check for the $40,000 overpayment.

Thus you walk away with $40,000 and a house you didn't pay a dime for out of pocket. The bank thinks it has a 90% LTV mortgage, when in reality the mortgage amount is higher than the actual fair market value of the property. If you want to get the most out of the fraud you then proceed to rent the house out for a year or so without making mortgage payments and collect all of that money too until the house is foreclosed upon. If your really smart, you paid some bum off the street who happens to have ok credit a few grand for the right to use him as your straw buyer. Or maybe you made mortgage payments with the hope that the house would appreciate in value enough to pay off the mortgage and make a profit.. but now that prices are going down, you might as well stop paying that mortgage.

Thats the type of shit that has been going on all over the place the last few years. Foreclosure business is going to be good!

There are legal ways to inflate the sale price for the purpose of financing closing costs called 'seller's concession.' These must always be disclosed to the bank. Anything undisclosed in this regard is loan fraud, which is a federal crime.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:33 am

good new.

News item: Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd gave a fairly gloomy short-term assessment of the housing market yesterday: "home prices, housing starts, home sales and home purchase lending will be down; delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures will be up. We do not expect the housing slump to bottom out until late next year."

This seems to be the emerging consensus from CEOs and policy makers these days. It differs from the consensus of commenters on this blog, who, if we read them correctly, believe the slump will linger for quite a lot longer than the next 15 months
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:27 am


Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests