Completely Irresponsible

[Kahuna]

Packsaddle writes: . Evidently we came up with this independently...convergent evolution?

 

Possibly.

[SSScout]

"Completely Irresponsible", yeah just dug that Robert Palmer video.... all the Congressmen in the background just grooving to the rythum...

 

How can it be permissible

They compromise my principle, yeah yeah

That kind of law is mythical

Congress is atypical

 

They're a craze youd endorse, they're a powerful force

Youre obliged to conform when theres no other course

They used to look good to me, but now I find them...

 

Simply irresponsible

Simply irresponsible

 

They're loving 'cause it's powerful, huh

Its simply unavoidable

The trend might be irreversible

The congress is redactable

 

Ain't a natural law, they leave me in awe

They deserve no applause, I surrender because

They used to look good to me, but now I find them

 

Simply irresponsible

Simply irresponsible

 

Simply irresponsible they're not kind, theres no tellin where the money went

Simply irresponsible they're all mine, the corporations say that's the way to go

 

Its unavoidable, we're backed against the wall

They give me feelings like I never felt before

Im breaking promises, they're breaking every law

They used to look good to me, but now I find them

 

Simply irresponsible

They're that kind, theres no tellin where the money went

Simply irresponsible they're all mine, the corporations all say that's the way to Go

 

Their methods are inscrutable

The proof is irrefutable, ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

They're so completely dismissable, huh

Our lives are so rescissible

 

They'd choke a horse, it's a powerful force

Youre obliged to conform when theres no other course

They used to look good to me, but now I find them

 

Simply irresponsible

Simply irresponsible

 

They're so fine, theres no tellin where the money went

Simply irresponsible they're all mine, theres no other way to go

There's no time, theres no tellin where the money went

Simply irresponsible , it's about time, theres no other way to go

 

Completely irresponsible.

 

[Basementdweller]

Universal health care is needed, like it or not. OR we need to give hospitals and doctors the right to turn away patients who cannot pay. We have large number of people who can afford health insurance and chose not to have any because they know hospitals and doctors have to take them.

 

We shot $200 million dollars worth of missles into libya for what??????? how many aircraft carriers do we need deployed 1.5million dollars a day??????

 

How many f-22's at $338 million each or a total cost of $63 billion dollars for the program????

 

not trying to pick on the military......But healthcare is a huge problem too, robots and steerable catheters at hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece. Americans want world class health care at third world prices. I have issue with an alcoholic who gets on the liver donor list and gets a new liver or the smoker who gets a new heart and lungs.......Death boards will be a reality.

 

Leukemia isn't the death sentence it once was, but the treatment is experimental and my insurance won't pay for it. so it is a treatment for the rich.

 

 

So reduce spending and keep taxes at current levels.

 

I got an idea, how about getting rid of that stupid mortgage interest deduction? this will put people into house they can actually afford.

[BrentAllen]

Sure, get rid of the mortage deduction. I'm sure that everyone's already depressed house prices will only drop another 25 - 30%, and the housing construction industry will get completely wiped out. Such a small sacrifice, right?

[Beavah]

Sure, get rid of the mortage deduction. I'm sure that everyone's already depressed house prices will only drop another 25 - 30%, and the housing construction industry will get completely wiped out. Such a small sacrifice, right?

 

Yah, that magnitude is probably a bit high, but there'd likely be a significant drop, because home prices remain inflated by the deduction and low mortgage rates.

 

Which just goes to show that government policies really do affect things, eh? Da mortgage deduction really does help distort the market. So if yeh believe in less government and that people should pay da real cost for things and make their own decisions without the government tryin' to pick winners and losers, then phasing out the deduction is a reasonable choice.

 

In da modern world, people often need to move for employment, and home ownership (especially an underwater mortgage) adds friction to the movement of labor. So it makes da U.S. labor market less nimble and efficient. It's also true that home ownership is generally a poor long-term investment, absent market bubbles and distortions. Was even before the crash. So the deduction tends to encourage folks to make a poor choice, when it's likely better to pay rent and invest in vehicles that improve capital flow and do a better job of economic expansion and job creation.

 

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/real-estate/renting-makes-more-financial-sense-than-homeownership-21111/

 

Beavah

 

[BrentAllen]

A 2007 article claiming 7% returns on stocks is your best argument?? That article is ridiculous. It does not even address the main reasons for buying a house - long-term building of wealth, and paid-for housing upon retirement (with a much lower cost of housing during retirement years). The argument that "If you had $300,000..." completely misses the point. How many first-time home buyers are sitting around with $300K in the bank? Most have a hard time coming up with the downpayment, and can barely afford rent. Buying a house allows a young couple to build wealth over time, while giving them a place to live and raise a family. I'm not real interested in what a single 34-year old New Yorker has to say about raising a family.

 

Yep, keep on renting, and see how that rent feels when your income drops at retirement. Me, I'll keep my house that has averaged an increase in value of over $12,000 per year since I bought it in 1994 - even counting this recession. It will be completely paid off when I retire at age 60. I won't be another burden on the government (and taxpayers), asking them to pay my rent because I can't afford it. I'll have an asset worth 6 or 7 figures that I can pass on to my kids, or downsize and use the extra equity to supplement my income during the "golden years."

[Basementdweller]

My point is it will put people in houses they can actually afford.

 

No first time home buyer should be buying a $200k house either. I still see it happening, getting sucked into the entire buying up scheme and interest only loans.

 

Far as the housing industry goes....a market correction is in order.

[Tampa Turtle]

The current situation makes me feel like a sucker.

 

Entered the workforce during the Reagan recession and thought there would be no SS so we started putting 15-20% away at age 22. Did really good but so much got wiped out in 1987 and the last crash.

 

Have some small pensions from a couple jobs but no faith that the deal I made with them will be kept.

 

We paid off our house by age 30, saved 10 years and paid 250k cash on our addition at the peak. House has appreciated 0% in 27 years at this point.

 

Can I stay in my house in retirement? Probably not. Property Insurance will likely force me out.

 

Down the street nice church going couple went upside down. Owe 250k. Stopped paying on house 3 years ago, just forced out a month. Now renting across the street from me. I got one car they have three. I pay my water bill I see (I work for the local government) they haven't paid there's in months. They went on a nice vacation; we did not because I thought I'd lose my job.

 

I feel like both parties have failed me and both could care less for the future of my kids.

[Basementdweller]

Tampa.....insurance will force you out, not property taxes.

 

I am more concerned about property taxes at retirement than insurance.

[Beavah]

I'll have an asset worth 6 or 7 figures that I can pass on to my kids, or downsize and use the extra equity to supplement my income during the "golden years.

 

Yah, but only because you've been subsidized by da government, eh? Both through the mortgage interest deduction and the government intervention in da credit markets. So you have been a burden on da government and on other taxpayers. Especially on those lower income taxpayers who are renting. You have been on the dole, my friend, and like everybody on the dole, yeh want it to continue.

 

Yeh also have been living in an unusual area. That's either luck or foresight, eh? If it was foresight, good on yeh. But it's often easy to mistake a bull market for intelligence, and da Atlanta area has definitely been a bull market. That hasn't been da average experience of most folks in the country, as Tampa Turtle points out.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I'm curious to understand where the figure of 25-30% comes from. Really? Please explain how eliminating the mortgage deduction would have that much effect. I am willing to accept Brent's numbers as real, after all why would he exaggerate about something like this? I just want to be able to understand how he got to those numbers.

 

As for the effect on the construction industry, Hey, that is the American economic system. Love it or leave it.

Heh, heh, I've loved repeating that little nugget every since Vietnam.

 

But really, if the construction industry's well-being depends on being able to suck on a government teat, maybe there is a bigger problem here somewhere. (note to Tea Party: here's another government handout to eliminate!)

 

And if someone is having trouble coming up with a down payment on a house, they need to consider that maybe, just maybe, they SHOULDN'T be able to purchase the thing. If they're having that much trouble, they're living life on the edge and as the whole housing bust has shown, those people tend to fall off, losing not only the house but most or all their investment as well. Like I said, that American economic system, the unseen hand, the magic of the free market....

[Eagledad]

>>Universal health care is needed, like it or not. OR we need to give hospitals and doctors the right to turn away patients who cannot pay. We have large number of people who can afford health insurance and chose not to have any because they know hospitals and doctors have to take them.

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad, da union-based health care programs in states like Wisconsin have been a scam for years, eh? That's not news. Any district that bids out health care is goin' to improve over a captive monopoly program run by a special interest.

 

I'm just not sure how that applies to Universal Health Care. Perhaps yeh could explain. Da nations that have universal health care are experiencing costs between a half and two thirds of ours in da U.S., with similar health outcomes and lower growth rates in expenses. Of course, they're also experiencing a form of rationing through longer delays for specialty care and lowered access to very expensive procedures, which is da tradeoff.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

If you consider the mortagage deduction a subsidy, then you will have to do the same for every landlord or apartment owner that expenses interest. Homeowners are just cutting out the middleman.

 

We bought a house in a great elementary school district, which I'm sure has had a big influence on home prices and stability. Test scores are in the 96 - 100%. People will pay to get their kids into our local school. We also have an incredibly powerful Dunwoody Homeowners Assoc. which has kept the county (and now city) zoning board in check. I'll let you determine whether buying a home when considering those criteria is luck or intelligence.

 

Packsaddle,

Removing the interest deduction would have the same effect as raising interest rates. If I couldn't deduct my mortgage payment, my real purchasing dollar would be worth around 30% less, depending on my tax bracket. Assuming the huge majority of home buyers have a mortgage and deduct interest, sellers across the board would have to adjust prices on the new reality - most home buyers can't afford as much as they could when they had the deduction.

When we bought our house, we had friends who were paying more in rent for a tiny one-bedroom apartment than we were paying on our mortgage for a 4-bedroom house. Owning a home was much less expensive than renting - if you had the down payment.

[packsaddle]

"Removing the interest deduction would have the same effect as raising interest rates. If I couldn't deduct my mortgage payment, my real purchasing dollar would be worth around 30% less, depending on my tax bracket."

This is confusing.

First, the interest deduction only applies to interest - while the interest 'rate' applies to the entire amount you still owe. Those are not the same thing.

Second, I was unaware that someone can deduct a mortgage payment. But if that's possible, I agree..that would be worth some serious cash. Correct me if I'm wrong because if I am wrong about not being able to deduct the mortgage, I need file a whole bunch of amended returns.

 

I have always read economic analyses which conclude that the mortgage interest deduction tends to lead to greater property prices and that its removal would cause prices to decline. If so, the removal of the deduction might just make ownership a little easier for those poor people you're so concerned about. As it is, the greatest benefit of the deduction tends to go to people who are wealthier, right? Just think, more of those people might be able to afford to live in Dunwoody! Woohoo!