<p>“I don’t know. I see the property tax deduction, the $500,000 tax free capital gain exclusion on homes, tax deferred exchanges and capital gains tax rates (You are right. Other asset classes also get this break).”</p>
<p>Yes overall real estate gets much tax treatment than other types of investments. Not sure if that is a bigger benefit to the mortgage companies or the homeowners. Either way I have never been a fan. But then I rent.</p>
<p>The important thing to remember is that without favourable tax treatment of home ownership there wouldn’t be all these second mortgages bucking up ridiculous private college tuitions.</p>
<p>“Maybe those who despise or envy those more wealthy than themselves should spend less effort whining and trying to penalize the wealthy and more effort to just improve their own wealth. If they’re happy with the wealth they have, they shouldn’t whine.”</p>
<p>Criticism is whining. So is pointing out discrepancies. Pointing out hypocrisy. Wondering how long the middle class will tolerate going nowhere. Wondering why income from different sources is taxed differently (Is the money different colors?). Wondering why we keep debasing our currency and why this is accepted policy.
Wondering why we are going to bail out the dealmakers, but not the homeowners. </p>
<p>I’m happy with the wealth I have. I’m not happy with the priorities of this country. Sorry if that’s whining, to you, uudad. Sometimes it’s not just about oneself.</p>
Some criticize and some whine. Some of those who are criticizing “the wealthy” really do come across as merely jealous and whining. dstark, you’ve posited some reasonable viewpoints (even if I don’t agree with them) so I’m not concluding that you’re whining. I really do think though that people would be better off expending more energy in just improving their own wealth rather than trying to knock down the wealth of others who happen to earn more than them.</p>
<p>And, I agree with you that companies that have made poor business decisions shouldn’t be bailed out. We might not agree on the point that I don’t think homeowners who made poor business decisions (over-leveraging to buy a more expensive house) also shouldn’t be bailed out.</p>
<p>I’m not criticising the wealthy. I’m criticising the bailouts, our tax system, etc.
I am criticising anybody that makes a living pushing free markets while asking for government handouts for their friends and themselves (the hypocrits).</p>
<p>I have this problem with those that say work harder if you want to achieve wealth, implying that if you don’t have the wealth you aren’t working hard enough.</p>
<p>Working harder doesn’t mean you will achieve wealth.
Having wealth doesn’t mean you worked harder.</p>
<p>I’m not in favor of bailing out the homeowners who are in trouble either. Many of then just refinanced their homes and spent the money.
I’m sorry for them, but…</p>
<p>It’s always easy to claim that the ‘other guy’ should pay more in taxes (regardless of whether they already do). </p>
<p>So, how many posting here believe that they themselves are not paying enough in taxes? Most likely you earn substantially more than some others so do you think your taxes should be increased even more? If you deduct your home mortgage interest on your taxes do you think this deduction should be eliminated because there are some people who don’t have a home loan and therefore aren’t claiming this deduction? Ditto with all of the other ‘tax benefits’ (such as various taxes and interest income) offered that you take advantage of that those of more modest income might not? If you’re philosophically adamant about it do you go ahead and not claim it anyway?</p>
<p>I should pay a little more in taxes. I think anyone with the means should. We aren’t paying enough taxes as a society and we haven’t too often the last 30 years. Look at the debt.</p>
<p>I’d also would like to see government spending cut but after 30 years of both republican and democratic presidents, I’m not going to hold my breath.</p>
<p>Actually, I wouldn’t want government cut. I want some programs cut and others like health care for all added.</p>
<p>I always liked this cartoon. I notice that you can not get rich doing anything the cartoon suggests. </p>
I agree with you here as well. A lot of people aren’t interested in amassing wealth but I don’t think they should hold anything against those who have happened to do so. A lot of people have decided to work very hard at volunteering and earn no income for it (my W does this). Others have managed to earn a fair amount of wealth through hard work, wise choices, specifically going after that target, or just plain luck. I’m saying that it’s okay for someone to earn wealth and they shouldn’t have an undue tax obligation simply because they’ve earned more than some others. I’m also saying that if people are unduly bothered by the idea that others earn more money than them (and therefore should pay even more orders of magnitude in taxes than they already do) they might be better served to focus on earning additional income themselves rather than holding something against those who happen to be higher earners than them.</p>
Barrons, the median taxpayer has seen no real income growth since 1986. None. If there are more taxpayers per “household” it’s entirely possible that “household” income has risen. But that doesn’t change the cold reality of economic stagnation for half of America. And it doesn’t change the fact that the top 1% of American taxpayers now have 40% more combined income than the bottom 50%. Go to the IRS site I linked to, and check it out yourself. </p>
<p>U-U-Dad, your “arguments” (i.e. sneering and name-calling) are typical means of responding to reasoned commentary on the fact that we have instituted an economic system in our country in the past 30 years which has been steadily concentrating wealth at the top. I’ve got nothing against “the rich” - quite a few of my friends belong to that group. I doubt that Warren Buffet does, either. I’m a long way from the mean or median myself. But the fact that I’ve got mine doesn’t change what’s good or bad for America. </p>
<p>The fact that you don’t have a public policy argument to make, and therefore fall back on the tried-and-true tactic of personal attack on anyone who points out the ugly facts of our increasing socio-economic stratification, the imbalance between benefits received and burden borne in our society by the various different strata, is the best evidence of the moral bankruptcy of your position. I don’t blame the wealthy for taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. I take advantage of the opportunities presented to me, and have advised my kids to do the same. That doesn’t mean that the fact that the deck is stacked in our favor is right, or that it’s good for America. I happen to think that a future America which is even more divided between the wealthy and the poor, with an increasingly scarce true middle class, will be an ugly world for me to bequeath to my children - even if they are among the “haves” in that world.</p>
<p>"Barrons, the median taxpayer has seen no real income growth since 1986. None. If there are more taxpayers per “household” it’s entirely possible that “household” income has risen. But that doesn’t change the cold reality of economic stagnation for half of America. "</p>
<p>Why would you expect wages to go up when we have 20 million illegal aliens in the country and millions more legal aliens plus H1B visas? Businesses have had tremendous productivity gains thanks to technology and cheap labour of both the skilled and unskilled kind.</p>
<p>The actual living standards of the American family has been kept afloat by putting more family members in the workforce, cheap imports, and borrowed money. The rate of savings in this country is at an all time low. On top of that or tax policies (and our niversity financial aid offices too for that matter) reward debt and punish thrift.</p>
<p>“The actual living standards of the American family has been kept afloat by putting more family members in the workforce, cheap imports, and borrowed money. The rate of savings in this country is at an all time low. On top of that or tax policies (and our niversity financial aid offices too for that matter) reward debt and punish thrift.”</p>
<p>I agree with higherlead too.</p>
<p>I can just gag when I hear Bernanke and Greenspan testify before congress and complain about the poor savings rate in this country. All those people (the Fed Chairmen, senators and congressman) need to look in a mirror.</p>
<p>Our poor savings rate and the eroding value of the dollar affects the rich and upper middle class too.</p>
<p>“Currency markets generally punish heavily indebted nations by pushing down their currency. In the absence of policies to boost domestic savings — and thereby slow the build up of debt — a steady decline of the dollar implies a steady decline in American living standards. A sharply accelerating decline would imply severe economic distress. By diversifying out of dollars, American investors seem intent, at least in part, on reducing their exposure to either eventuality.”</p>
<p>I would like to see the income growth broken out by education levels. </p>
<p>I really don’t care that the top income earners make more than whatever number of the poor. It won’t make the poor any better off in any meaningful way to take away the money those folks made. usually they spread it around pretty well. Have you see what household help is making in LA and NYC?. Every $50 Million home and yacht they buy was built by a bunch of guys making a good living. Other big chunks are being donated to all sorts of causes and schools at record numbers. Just look at the multi-billion dollar campaigns going on at schools now. You don’t get there $500 at a time. Even my very middle-class dominated school has had a large number of $10 Million plus donations recently. Pretty much all of those came from self-made rich guys from small towns.</p>
<p>Seems that the Breck Boy in addition to taking News Corp’s filthy lucre also invests in offshore subprime mortgage hedge funds. While I think hypocrisy is a much overrated vice I cannot say the same for stupidity.</p>
<p>Barrons, who cares?
The government is devaluing our currency and lowering our standard of living.
That affects almost everybody in the US.
I really don’t care about some guy’s donation.</p>
<p>"None of the cuts elicited a more virulent outcry than the elimination of the program for the homeless mentally ill.</p>
<p>The program had been on the chopping block all summer. Advocates, including the architects of California’s effort to overhaul its troubled mental health system, had staged a furious lobbying effort to stave off the cut.</p>
<p>But in justifying it, Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said local governments should step in instead. “We believe if these programs are a priority to counties, they have resources available to them to provide funding,” he said.</p>
<p>Counties across the state, however, are facing the slow erosion of their traditional mental health budgets; state Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who created the just-eliminated program in 1999, called the cut “unconscionable.”</p>
<p>He noted that despite the allegedly strapped conditions of the state, legislators managed to preserve a tax break for some purchasers of yachts, planes and recreational vehicles – a measure that could cost the state as much as $45 million.</p>
<p>“A $45-million tax break for yacht owners stays in the budget,” Steinberg said. “And a nationally recognized, incredibly effective program to end homelessness for those living with mental illness gets thrown under the bus.”</p>
<p>I suppose you prefer CNN aka the Ckinton News Network or Reuters aka Rooters or any paper where the unbias reporters break out in huzzas when a presidential advisor announces he is leaving :-)</p>
<p>For my money there isn’t a candidate out there for either party that doesn’t have serious flaws but Edwards really stuck his foot in his mouth. Can anybody get Obama to step aside in favour of his wife? I think I actually like her. Especially when she told them to go stuff it with the makeup.</p>
<p>I care more than I care about some California program that may or may not work and if it does work they should be able to apply the “savings” in other areas at the local level to continue it. To say a tax benefit in one area causes a cut in another is just grandstanding. The Cali budget is in the tens of Billions. Either of these items is a small blip. The article said new 100’s of millions are going into other mental health programs. California has a tax problem, not a spending problem.</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Way_to_Grow_Poor,_The_Way_to_Grow_Rich_--_Currier_&_Ives_1875.jpg[/url]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Way_to_Grow_Poor,_The_Way_to_Grow_Rich_--_Currier_&_Ives_1875.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
