.....And obviously, the worst place to be is to have any stock market money in cash in here, with returns close to zero, plus missing out on the gains this year. I guess the only place worse than cash has been to be short the market.....Some people are short the market because it's summer....And there's no question that when that positive stock market forecast was made in January.....it was a forecast that was a voice in the wilderness. There's no doubt about that, with all the negativity that was out there back in January. But I've often said, so frequently, the best place to be is to be a voice in the wilderness because that's the way the stock market works very frequently....it is a forward looking mechanism.....it does not have a rear-view mirror. And so the key to success in 2009 has been to be looking forward, to be discounting future developments. And the key has been to do so with a fully invested stock market portfolio."
[Honey EC: Brinker was also fully invested during the biggest bear market in 70 years -- 2007-2009. That "key" was not considered quite so successful by those who followed his advice. And all this "melt-up" is doing for their portfolios is recouping major losses.]
CALIFORNIA BUDGET AGREEMENT...Brinker said that education was slashed $9billion-plus, however, bond-holders were paid in a timely manner. [Honey EC: Brinker did not mention the fact that the state is picking the pockets of cities and counties, even the ones that are having big financial problems of their own. There will be lawsuits.]
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 13
Caller Tom from Wisconsin, asked about Prop 13 in California.
Brinker used this opportunity to voice his own viewpoint that Prop 13 is totally "unfair." [Honey EC: Brinker is VERY ill-informed about Prop 13. And it seems disingenuous for him to, on one hand, say how "out of control" and "dysfunctional" the California Legislature is, and on the other hand, want to open the door for them to tax people out of their homes and/or be driven from the state.]
Caller John in San Jose, California, tried to explain why there is "absolutely no inequity in Prop 13." After just a few seconds, Brinker interrupted John and said he wanted to talk because he wasn't interested in one-sided conversations. [Honey EC: I laughed for three minutes at that one.] John got in a few more words before Brinker interrupted him again, repeated his views even louder, then hung up.
Caller Bob in San Francisco, California, tried to explain some more details about Prop 13 to Brinker. He said that if it was changed, there would be a mass-exodus from California. Brinker replied that people would not leave the state if they didn't want to. [Honey EC: Brinker evidently isn't aware that taxpayers are already leaving the state. In my humble opinion, Brinker needs to come down off that high horse he's riding there in state-tax-free Nevada and take a look at the real world and real people.]
WHY PROP 13 HAPPENED...Caller Bill in Cupertino, California, said: "Basically local government treated everyone's home as a cash machine, so it was a form of taxpayer revolt. The problem in terms of non-functionality is people in government that can't live within their means. Everyone wants to live on a champagne budget when they can afford beer......The over-spending just goes up and down government all the way."
[Honey EC: I can personally attest that Bill is absolutely correct about homes being treated as "cash machines" until Prop 13 dampened it. And another thing Brinker is evidently not aware of is that since 1978, the vast majority of homes in California have changed hands and have been re-assessed at higher levels. That includes my own when I moved in 1999 and gave up my low tax basis in San Jose. So there are relatively few homes that are still assessed at the 1975 level. This was true 20 years ago as the following press release states, and is exponentially more true today]:
Press Release [link] "They also found that the fraction of 1975 base-year property has decreased substantially over time, mainly due to new construction and properties being sold and reassessed.....limiting the property tax rate to one percent, and restricting the growth of property tax increases to two percent annually."
CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT....Brinker said: "The IOU's sunk the battleship. In other words, when they ran out of money and had to start printing fake vouchers, whether they're good or not, they are not money. And once that happened....that was it. School was out, it was there for all to see, dysfuntionality on steroids. It's called Sacramento, the government not the city." [Honey EC: And these are the people that Brinker wants to again give carte blanche to tax us out of our homes. Yes, the state IS helping itself to local property taxes as I type this...]
IMPLIED INFLATION RATE: Brinker said the implied rate is now at 1.9% annual for the next ten years.
DEFLATION RATE: Brinker said the YOY deflation rate in the CPI is now at 1.4% "....so in order to get from the negative 1.4 to positive 1.9, the implied rate....you would need to see inflation increase by 3.3%."
FDIC INSURANCE....Frank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said his mom sold her home and was getting a settlement for over $250,000. He wanted to know about FDIC insurance. Brinker asked: "Is your mother married? ....In a case like this FDIC insurance is essential. I wouldn't ever consider any other possibility." Brinker mentioned the CDARS program.
VANGUARD GNMA FUND [VFIIX].....Phil in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, wanted to know why GNMA's are so good. Brinker said because they are Treasury backed. No credit risk -- only interest rate risk. Brinker said he puts the GNMA Fund interest rate risk at "about the mid-$9's to the mid-$10's." The yield on VFIIX is about 4% now.
TRADING VOLUME.... Bob in New Mexico, said that he had noticed that trading volume was very low and wondered how we could have a bull market without higher trading volume. Brinker said: "Well I guess they're scratching their heads because obviously we are in a cyclical bull market.....As to why the volume is down, I think part of it is that the volume in the summer tends to wane frequently because a lot of people are vacation and doing other things...And I think the other part of it is there are a lot of people out there who became disaffected last year by what they saw going on in Wall Street."
[Honey EC: After two years of silence on cyclical/secular trends, Brinker is now free to talk about "cyclical bull markets" again because in May he admitted that he made a mistake when he retroactively declared that a "secular bear megatrend" had ended. I know, I know....But I'm really not making this up. LOL!]
WASHINGTON HEALTH CARE "REFORM
Brinker thinks "something may happen" by the end of the year. Brinker said: "What will be the impact? Well the impact will be dramatic on a lot of people, but small business is certainly going to be right in the cross-hairs of this deal because if you are an employer who today does not provide health care coverage, then you are going to have to pay a payroll tax of up to 8% a year. That will be as a penalty for not providing health care coverage. Now it goes beyond that. If you are an employer today who does provide health care coverage, then if that coverage is considered by the muckity-mucks to be inadequate -- and THEY will define inadequate, not you -- then you are going to have to also pay that tax.....In addition to that, if your employees go out and choose another plan, then you are still going to have to pay.....
.....The reality is, the vast majority of jobs in the United States are created by small business. So the impact of this legislation, which remains a work in process, is really a big deal, since small businesses are so critical to the creation of new jobs.....So what do you do if you're running a small business, your profitability is probably already compromised.... by the economy and what's going on here and around the world......What do you do if Uncle Sam knocks on your door and says, Okay, pony up 8% of payroll as a tax because you're not providing sufficient coverage for your staff.....How do you raise that money? You might have to cut payroll....Reduce your payroll by 8% and you save the 8% tax that is being leveled by the hypothetical health care proposal that's out there....
....This legislation as it's developing is going to require 20-somethings to purchase health insurance policies that will not reflect their risk of illness. Now statistically, your risk of illness when you are 20-something is really low....But the way the House Bill and the Senate Bill is shaping so far, you are going to grossly overpay-- probably as a 30-something even...Because the prices of the policies for the young will be over-priced so that the prices of the policies for the seniors can be priced at lower levels....There are a lot of problems out there.
.....You've seen the surtax proposed. I notice Nancy Pelosi really likes this tax....She has fallen in love with this 5.4% surtax on high earners. She just seems to thinks this is the greatest thing ever. Well in California, the top bracket is close to 10.5%, if you got the surtax, you got the uncapped Medicare -- that's 2.9% for a business person, both sides, got the top federal bracket going to 39.6% in January of 2011. Add them all up, in places like California, places like Oregon, many other places as well, your top bracket is in the upper 50's. So the entrepreneuer at that point is taking home a little bit more than 40 cents on the dollar....
.....One of the things that they don't seem to understand in Washington is that they just keep raising the tax brackets, and compounding the tax brackets......They just don't seem to get it.....
.....If this health care reform is so valuable....if it's that good, why would you only ask the people making over a $million a year to pay for it. What would be the rational behind that. Now supposedly, you've already nailed these people with the uncapped Medicare.....Now you are piling on these people with the 5.4 surtax....
....They've had a lot of other proposals on how to pay for this. It's going to be really expensive -- one to $1.6 trillion for a decade. This will be the biggest social reform since the Medicare act of 1965. And they don't seem to be coming up with any other ways to pay for it other than let's nail the top brackets. Pretty soon they are going to be trying to get water out of a stone because there's a very limited number of people in that bracket. You get over a $million, you've got -- and nobody feels sorry for them, don't get me wrong -- but I think it's something like 6/10 of 1% of the tax returns are over a $million.....On a thousand tax returns, you might have 6 tax returns that would be in that category. Now how much can you get out of these people there are so few of them."
Regarding the surtax on the "rich," Brinker said that congress probably will not consider the law of "unintended consequences."
Honey's Market Reports:
* Dow closed at 9093.24, a 4% gain for the week.
* Nasdaq Composite Index closed at 1965.96 a gain of 4.2% for the week.
* S&P 500 Index closed at 979.26, a gain of 4.1% for the week. (8.4% gain year-to-date.)
* GLD closed at $93.41.
Brinker's Saturday guest-speaker was Lawrence McDonald, "A Collossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers"
Bob R. sent this regarding the Brinker-McDonald interview:
"Honey: This is an excerpt from an article in Rolling Stone magazine about the on-going clout of Goldman Sachs. I'm sending it to you, appropo of Bob Brinker's Sat. 3rd hour interview with the Lawrence McDonald the guy who wrote the book about the loss of Lehman Bros. You can find the whole article by Googling "Rolling Stone Goldman Sachs." Its a long article tracing the company's history and the surprising number of GS top execs who ended up with government posts. One caution, the article contains the usual foul language that I guess Rolling Stone readers demand, so be warned."
BUBBLE #5 Rigging the Bailout
After the oil bubble collapsed last fall, there was no new bubble to keep things humming — this time, the money seems to be really gone, like worldwide-depression gone. So the financial safari has moved elsewhere, and the big game in the hunt has become the only remaining pool of dumb, unguarded capital left to feed upon: taxpayer money. Here, in the biggest bailout in history, is where Goldman Sachs really started to flex its muscle.
It began in September of last year, when then-Treasury secretary Paulson made a momentous series of decisions. Although he had already engineered a rescue of Bear Stearns a few months before and helped bail out quasi-private lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers — one of Goldman's last real competitors — collapse without intervention. ("Goldman's superhero status was left intact," says market analyst Eric Salzman, "and an investmentbanking competitor, Lehman, goes away.") The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.
Immediately after the AIG bailout, Paulson announced his federal bailout for the financial industry, a $700 billion plan called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and put a heretofore unknown 35yearold Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari in charge of administering the funds. In order to qualify for bailout monies, Goldman announced that it would convert from an investment bank to a bankholding company, a move that allows it access not only to $10 billion in TARP funds, but to a whole galaxy of less conspicuous, publicly backed funding — most notably, lending from the discount window of the Federal Reserve. By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret...."
Moneytalk programs are available free on "demand" at KGO810 radio for seven days after broadcast. You can download and save Bob Brinker's Moneytalk programs (owned by ABC) and listen whenever you choose at no cost whatsoever. To download the programs to your MP3 player or flash drive, just choose the day, then right click on the hour that you want and use "Save Link as." KGO Moneytalk Archives [Link] If you want to call KGO and complain about or praise Bob Brinker's Moneytalk, here are the numbers: Comments line: 415-216-1052....Listener services: 415-216-1050
Dixiegeezer sent this picture of a "wood stork." I am very surprised at the variety of birds that Dixiegeezer photographs in Florida that I have never seen here on the west coast.
Dixiegeezer sent this picture of a "wood stork." I am very surprised at the variety of birds that Dixiegeezer photographs in Florida that I have never seen here on the west coast.

.

37 comments:
From CA Political News:
July 26, 2009, 10:35 AM
ObamaCare has been exposed.
It is not about forcing a 22 year old to buy health insurance--though broke. It is not about making sure the guy that is unemployed and his family have health insurance.
In actuality, the largest group that is not covered by a health insurance plan or can not get free health care from a government program are the ILLEGAL ALIENS--all 11-12 million of them. ObamaCare is really for them, at your expense.
And if you think illegal alien are not dangerous, as Barack Obama does, hence demands law enforcement NOT enforce the laws against them, ask the family of the 30 year old Border Patrol guard killed by an illegal alien that had never committed a felony in this nation before. "If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next ObamaCare show to explain."
President Obama has already shown his disdain for honest Americans. He has already shown that he wants illegal aliens to get health care and welfare benefits, though here illegally. "But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught."
Yesterday, in the LA area a private firm that "legally" sells vehicle registrations was found to sell, for $3500, phony birth certificates, Social Security cards, drivers licenses and would registration stolen cars--to illegal aliens, per the LA Times. Is that enough crime for you?
Why does Barack Obama hate the poor and middle class in America so much? Why does he refuse to uphold his oath? Why does he prefer law breakers to honest people? Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Frank Davis, Bill Ayres, the numerous tax crooks and bigots he has appointed, must all be proud.
Are you proud of a President that wants to give free health care to illegal aliens, and at the same time take away your freedom to quality care?
Capoliticalnews.com
.
If the ObamaCare is so good, one has to demand an answer to these questions, (one of which he side-stepped at the infomercial)
1. Why are you and all of Congress exempt?
2. Why are ALL government employees exempt from the rules that everyone else has to abide by?
3. Are you giving your solemn promise that Medicare treatment will NOT be cut AND that costs will NOT increase for ANYONE?
He cannot and will not answer these questions, nor will the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Therefore, my answer is "NOOPE..........take your plans and shove them!"
HI Bob.
Thanks for taking my call. You talked about Prop 13 in California and brought up the issue of fairness. I thought it might be of interest to your listeners in that state and especially those in KGO country to know what you pay in property taxes so the can compare their own taxes and decide if they are being treated fairly in comparison to you. As you know data on the price you paid for your home and your property taxes are often available as a matter of public record. Mr. Brinker you have a place in Henderson Nevada that you claims as your principle residence. I looked on Zillow to get what you paid, etc.
Owner BRINKER ROBERT J & HILARY , HENDERSON,
NV UNITED STATES
4/2/2006 Current
Compare:Sales History & Tax Information
Sold (03/28/2006): $1,021,523
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/home-info/70056389_zpid/
According to the Clark county tax records you pay $5,342.82.
http://trweb.co.clark.nv.us/WEP_Summary.asp?Parcel=160-14-814-035
Taxes as Assessed $5,342.82
Less Cap Reduction $0.00
Net Taxes $5,342.82
Just so no one thinks I am singling Mr. Brinker out, I will also show what another radio talk show host pays as well as a rival newsletter writer.
http://wwwco.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/web/detail_info.aspx?p_entity=50434234020000110&geonav=Y&styp=general&owner=limbaugh&city=-1&zip=&method=owner&cidx=-1&sdiv=&sdivnam=&stno=&pdir=&st=&strnm=&sufx=&ptdir=&cty=&rng=&twp=&sct=&blk=&lot=&book=&page=&tangid=&condo=&condoname=&use=&usnam=&sloc=& ;prd=&pedir=&podir=&famt=&tamt=&fsqft=&tsqft=&srt1=&srt2=&srt3=&stpage=0&adlfilter=
http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/web/detail_info.aspx?p_entity=42434510010000122&geonav=Y&styp=general&owner=navellier&city=-1&zip=&method=owner&cidx=-1&sdiv=&sdivnam=&stno=&pdir=&st=&strnm=&sufx=&ptdir=&cty=&rng=&twp=&sct=&blk=&lot=&book=&page=&tangid=&condo=&condoname=&use=&usnam=&sloc=&prd=&pedir=&podir=&famt=&tamt=&fsqft=&tsqft=&srt1=&srt2=&srt3=&stpage=0&adlfilter=
When I compare Mr.Brinker's taxes to my own it looks to me like he is getting a sweetheart deal. I purchased my current home in the same year as he did. It was 3 years old and built by Lennar. I paid $300,000 and my tax bill last year was $4,800. I would be interested is some feedback from folks living in California to see if they feel they are being treated fairly in comparison to Mr. Brinker.
Brinker's real estate taxes have absolutely nothing to do with what somebody else pays in Florida or anywhere else.
And nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition 13.
jeffchriste makes no attempt whatsoever to even compare similar properties.
I can guarantee you that I have a "sweetheart" deal on my taxes compared to Donald Trump's taxes.
Totally meaningless comparisons.
Jeffchristie asked: "I would be interested is some feedback from folks living in California to see if they feel they are being treated fairly in comparison to Mr. Brinker."
Hi Jeff,
I looked at the links you sent and I feel like Brinker has it very good by comparison to if he lived in California.
If he paid $1 million for a condo on a golf course and lake here, his taxes would be much more than they are in Nevada.
MOF, if he paid half that for a home in California, his taxes would be at least as much.
All this is IN SPITE OF California's Prop 13.
And don't forget that California just suffered a full 1% sales tax increase, bringing some of the top rates up to 9.25% on almost everything we buy.
Additionally, the top income tax bracket was raised. NEVADA HAS ZERO, ZIP, NADA!
And adding insult to injury: I just paid my license fee renewal on my car. Firstly, I had to fork out $50 for a "Smog Check," then I sent a check that was 270% higher than last year!
.
Can someone explain why the comparisons between CA and Nevada property taxes? As Walter said, one has nothing to do with the other.
We're comparing apples and oranges.
States are completely independent on how they tax their suck . . . er, citizens.
To compare one state to another is as irrelevant as comparing the tax structure between two countries, claiming that one is "unfair."
Bluce asked: "Can someone explain why the comparisons between CA and Nevada property taxes? As Walter said, one has nothing to do with the other."
Hi Bluce,
I can't speak for Jeff, but I was making the comparison because Brinker spent a good share of the program yesterday slamming California tax payers (and voters, e.g., Prop 13), while he lives in Nevada.
.
Bluce,
I should add that I agree with you philosophically. It is apples and oranges -- especially between countries.
But Brinker needs to be shown for what he is.....
.
LOL, Honey I agree, that showing BB to be ill-informed, a liar and loser is paramount.
On the Sunday program I heard Brinker bragging about his January statement that the stock market would have a significantly positive year. He made his famous "voice in the wilderness" statement again suggesting that he was the ONLY financial advisor to have this bullish view. When he blows a call, he ignores stock market discussion and doesn't take any calls about the market, but when the market goes in his favor he is very happy to accept calls about the stock market. Now he can try to "con" new listeners that he is a genious. It's good this blog exists because this is place for people to learn that for the past two years nobody has been more WRONG about the market than Bob Brinker.
In reference to the man who called about his mother and wanting to be sure she was within the FDIC guidelines for insurance coverage, why did he refer him to CDARS? All he has to do is title the account in his mothers name POD him (her son) and they get another account with the full 250,000 covered. Why would he recommend CDARS? There are a few ways for an individual to have more than 1 account insured by FDIC, why didn't he tell him that? He seemed to be hawking CDARS.
Jim said: "On the Sunday program I heard Brinker bragging about his January statement that the stock market would have a significantly positive year....
....It's good this blog exists because this is place for people to learn that for the past two years nobody has been more WRONG about the market than Bob Brinker."
Thank you, Jim. You have an excellent grasp of the real Bob Brinker.
As is his usual MO, Brinker is now covering up all of his disastrous blunders over the past year and half bear market.
From now on (if the market continues to rise), he will perpetrate the falsehood that he, and his followers, have made money on his prediction that 2009 would be a "significant" year.
And he will continue to cleverly give the impression to Moneytalk listeners that he became "fully invested" as of this January.
He will simply make the past go away. I've seen him do it several times over the past 9 years.
I've tried to maintain a record of his actual calls because I know that he will only reveal what makes him look good and what sells newsletters to unsuspecting suckers who believe and trust him.
Josie said: "He seemed to be hawking CDARS."
You are correct, Josie. I don't know what the connection is, but I've seen CDARS advertised on his website.
So that may be it, or it may be more. Somehow, Alan Blinder fits in the mix -- Brinker mentioned him as an "add on" when he talked about CDARs.
Brinker also advertises for Mark Hulbert who uses "creative" numbers (and facts) when ranking Brinker's model portfolios. It's blatant one hand washing the other.
Is it fraud? I report, you decide.
.
Bluce said...
Can someone explain why the comparisons between CA and Nevada property taxes? As Walter said, one has nothing to do with the other.
We're comparing apples and oranges.
Brinker went into one of his RANTS Saturday on the fairness of Prop 13 in California. He said it wasn't fair that someone who lived in the same house had a tax considerably less than a recent buyer. He seemed to be saying that he didn't think these people were being taxed enough. I thought it would be interesting for the people he was criticizing to be able to compare their taxes to Brinker's so they could see if they felt he was paying his fair share.
Since you are so opposed to the Obama Health Care Plan, I'll ask again, what is your plan? If you think Obama's plan is too expensive, consider the cost of doing nothing.
Doing nothing means insurance premiums continue rising faster than wages. Insurance companies dictating more and more medical decisions and denying coverage while their profits soar.
If we do nothing to reform the health care system now in place, it will completely bankrupt the country by 2025. That means 100% of all tax money will go to Social Security and Medicare, not to mention driving millions more Americans out of the system and destroying our business competitiveness. Talk about expensive!
Today there are 47 million legal American Citizens who have no health care coverage at all. That's what the Obama health care plan is about, American citizens.
It has nothing to do with illegal aliens which is a separate issue. I blame the failed Clinton economic policy which brought them here in the first place: NAFTA? NAFTA has been a disaster and needs to be modified as soon as possible.
I guess it's easier to just blame poor people who have run out of options, than to go after the real causes.
jeffchristie said...I thought it would be interesting for the people he was criticizing to be able to compare their taxes to Brinker's so they could see if they felt he was paying his fair share.
How much Brinker pays in property taxes compared to somebody else, somewhere else has absolutely nothing to do with the fairness of either tax!
Your argument has no credibility whatsoever.
Walter Zine said: "How much Brinker pays in property taxes compared to somebody else, somewhere else has absolutely nothing to do with the fairness of either tax!
Your argument has no credibility whatsoever."
Hi Walter,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, Brinker is the one who spent much of Saturday's program talking about how "totally unfair" California's Prop 13 is. He admitted that he is well aware that this tax measure was passed by a vast majority of the California voters.
Now I'm no mathematician, but I think 1 + 1 still equals 2. Brinker was denigrating California voters and inferring that many home owners should be paying more taxes. That makes it fair game to compare the "fairness" of his own property taxes in order to show that he is throwing stones from a glass house.
It's just a real shame that Brinker won't allow anyone speak long enough on his program to ask him why he slams the California legislature for over-spending, then complains that home-owners are not paying enough tax.
As Jeffchristie has shown, Brinker has a pretty sweet deal for himself there in the state of Nevada. No state income tax and bargain basement property tax on a $million condo.
.
Now Honeybee says...As Jeffchristie has shown, Brinker has a pretty sweet deal for himself there in the state of Nevada. No state income tax and bargain basement property tax on a $million condo.
Can't you see that Brinker's own personal situation in Nevada or anywhere else has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fairness of California's Proposition 13?
Your argument SHOULD address why you think it's fair that next door neighbors may pay vastly different taxes on IDENTICAL properties.
But neither you nor jeffchristie address this at all, instead you just blast Brinker for his supposedly "low" taxes in Nevada.
Makes no sense at all.
Walter,
I have explained for the last time why I think it was fair to make the comparison. It goes to show BRINKER'S hypocrisy.
I have also explained enough about Prop 13 to show that it IS fair and Brinker is ill-informed.
So tell me, Walter, are you a home owner in California?
.
Honeybee NOW says...So tell me, Walter, are you a home owner in California?
As a matter of fact I own homes in BOTH California and Nevada.
Now YOU tell me which one has the "fairer" tax basis!
That's all you need to know isn't it? Nevada = Bad. California = Good.
This argument is over.
Walter Zine and Brinker ask:
Your argument SHOULD address why you think it's fair that next door neighbors may pay vastly different taxes on IDENTICAL properties.
It is simple. Lets say you bought house in a decent CA neighborhood with top schools and low crime in the 1990's. Lets say you paid $575,000 or so. Today your property taxes are are just under $10,000 a year based on an assessed value of $750,000 reflecting a gain of 2% per year per Prop 13.
Lets say someone from Las Vegas Nevada decides paying $1,031,000 for a condo on a fake lake and 120 degree summer heat is insane, kicks his gambling habit, saves a few million by not gambling and celebrates by bidding against others to be my next door neighbor with our expected 77F summer weather for today. He might have to pay $1.6M to buy that house many of us thought was only worth $575,000. His property taxes will be double mine but he knows they will be locked in at that rate with 2% a year gains as long as he lives there. If he thinks that is unfair, then he can stay in the hellish heat of Nevada. If not, he has to pay the price to move.
The unfair part is to expect us who live here to pay higher taxes just because rich folks who make it big outside CA move here for the weather and drive up our home prices. Many of us would not care if our homes didn't appreciate as we plan to live here and appreciation only means higher taxes.
Before prop 13, my retired grandmother was nearly taxed out of her house when my grandfather died as her social security went down. Her sister, who never married and cut hair for a living before she retired on social security, moved in to help pay the bills.
I know someone else who raised a family in what became Pacific Grove starting after WW2. They used wood from the army barracks to build a home on very cheap land. After 60 years, others thought her lot was worth $600,000 yet all she had to pay bills was social security checks and credit cards. Thank goodness for prop 13 or she would have been out of her house. I could go on but the point is you have to look at it from the point of view of people who have lived in CA for generations getting priced out of their homes because others who are rich by comparison are willing and can afford to pay more.
Walter,
NOONE ever said or even inferred Nevada was "bad."
MOF, I wouldn't mind living in certain parts of it near Tahoe.
You must not know that I am economically conservative and a strict Constitutionalist.
I think that all Americans are over-taxed, and if you can get yourself a break, more power to you.
Brinker is the one who was slamming California home-owners for trying to protect themselves from being taxed right out of their homes -- and maybe the state.
If you want to end our conversation, that is fine. I do appreciate your expressing your opinions, and I thank you for taking the time to do it here.
.
Walter Zine said...
Honeybee NOW says...So tell me, Walter, are you a home owner in California?
As a matter of fact I own homes in BOTH California and Nevada.
Now YOU tell me which one has the "fairer" tax basis!
That's all you need to know isn't it? Nevada = Bad. California = Good..
This argument is over.
NO IT ISN'T Walter. Brinker's whole premise of expecting "fairness" in any tax system is absurd. The whole idea is just another example of one of his bizarre statements. I don't expect fairness in any tax system and can't understand why he or anyone else would. We are dealing with the government here.
As to the situation in California under prop 13 I would like to add this to go with Kirk's comments:
Brinker wanted to know if it was fair that people who live in a home for years are paying far less property taxes than recently purchased property.
Well Mr. Brinker I look at it this way. It's 1980 and I am living in Illinois. My company wants me to relocate to California. I ask a local realtor what can I get for my house. I am told around $150.000. I go to California and tell the realtor that I am interested in looking at homes in the 150 to 200K range. I'm told there are no 200k homes in this city. Prices start at 300K. I see one of those homes. It is not as nice as my home in Illinois. I look into the property tax. It is 2% so I would have to pay $6,000 a year. I do my budget. It looks like the higher house payments, higher property taxes along with a higher state income tax will be a real burden to me and my family. I decide we will do it but will have to cut back our spending to make ends meet. It is now 25 years later. I still have 5 years of house payment left. Someone buys the house next door to me. It is identical to mine. They pay 1.2 million. My taxes have gone up 2% a year under Prop 13 and I am now paying $9,800 a year. The person moving in next door is paying 2% of 1.2 million which is $24,000 a year. While my income has gone up since 1980, it will soon be going down since I am reaching retirement age. If I had to pay $24,000 a year in property taxes that would be bigger than my mortgage payments. If I had known in 1980 that I would be facing $24,000 a year in property taxes I would have remained in Illinois.
I agree with Walter. To me this is a very simple, cut-and-dried issue.
According to Honey's and others' explanations, apparently BB is seriously mis-informed about prop 13.
Fine. He is wrong about a lot of things and I personally do not like him for many reasons, so I am not trying to defend him here.
But there is no logical connection that can be made between him being seriously wrong about prop 13 and the fact that he does not live in CA.
If he DID live in CA, he would still be wrong about P13; if he lived in NY, Florida, Illinois, etc. he would STILL be wrong about P13.
What difference does it make where he lives or how much/little taxes he pays as a result of his location?
Kirk enters the argument... He might have to pay $1.6M to buy that house many of us thought was only worth $575,000. His property taxes will be double mine but he knows they will be locked in at that rate with 2% a year gains as long as he lives there. If he thinks that is unfair, then he can stay in the hellish heat of Nevada. If not, he has to pay the price to move.
The unfair part is to expect us who live here to pay higher taxes just because rich folks who make it big outside CA move here for the weather and drive up our home prices.
Kirk, the market value of the house IS $1.6M REGARDLESS of what you think.
If you were to sell your house it would be based on present market values. Not your historical cost.
Property taxes are supposed to be based on market values...not some phony capped historical prices.
Whether or not the owner can afford those taxes is an entirely different argument. Nobody said taxes are fair.
And I think that has to be the first time I ever heard a Californian claim outsiders were moving INTO California and driving UP the prices!!
Usually it's the other way around, Californians take their vastly inflated sales/market values to other cheaper states like Nevada where they Californicate the local prices!
No, Brinker is right. Identical properties should carry identical property taxes.
Why don't you offer to buy some of those protected properties at Prop 13 carrying values and see what response you get.
If you can't afford the taxes you can't afford to live there. Period.
Prop 13 is fair if you have grandfathered tax rates and unfair if you don't.
But more importantly since the passage of Prop 13, California's ranking in education has dropped from first in the nation and the envy of the world, all the way down to 2nd to last of the 50 states.
State tax fund investment in higher education has declined by 40 percent since 1980.
Well, this has been an enjoyable debate and I like it that even my friends feel free to disagree with me.
But -- the big one 8^)
Taxman, there are not 47 million uninsured U.S. citizens. I need to find the documentation, and don't have time this morning. I believe there is nearer 15-20 million.
Also, I recieved an email from someone who didn't want to post this, but told me I could post it if I wanted to. I want to because I agree with what he wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
"As to Obama's health care plan, it sure sounds a lot better than the one that is being written in the House of representatives. He says people will be able to keep their same insurance and their same doctors. That doesn't seem to be the case in the House bill.
Of course Obama has admitted that he isn't familiar with the provisions in that bill. Henry Waxman said much the same thing when he as ask by another representative about a provision in the bill. Why should we expect the chairman of the committee or the president of the United States to know all the details of what is in the health care bill? I would be willing to support any bill they draft provided they all had to live with the same coverage they are providing me.
I'm sorry but Illegal aliens are still part of the picture even if this bill passes. When one of them is involved in a car accident he will be taken to a hospital and treated. I believe his is required under current federal law. Those costs go into the system and must be absorbed somewhere.
As for NAFTA, Do you really think there would be less illegals in California if it hadn't been enacted? I don't see the connection. In fact I would expect it to have exactly the opposite effect. Manufacturing jobs have been exported. People down there can now find work.
So Taxman, are you willing to wait in line behind drug addicts and illegal aliens for the next available heart/liver transplant? God forbid that you should need it....
.
Here's a source for the 47 million uninsured:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
It cites the census bureau. I see a lot of attempts to debunk this number, but I think this source is solid.
NAFTA has all but destroyed the Mexican agricultural economy by flooding Mexico with cheap food exports from the US. Instead of the big "sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico, it's the other way around. There are no jobs in Mexico, the jobs are all up here. If there were plenty of jobs in Mexico do you think we'd be seeing the flood of illegals?
I personally have seen the huge difference in the number of illegals crossing the border since passage of NAFTA. Illegals are a red-herring. They have nothing to do with health reform one way or the other. Sorry. I agree with you on many things, but on this I do not.
Honeybee says again...So Taxman, are you willing to wait in line behind drug addicts and illegal aliens for the next available heart/liver transplant?
I don't suppose you have anything to support your statement do you?
I always wondered how those rich and famous folks were able to get heart/liver transplants and now I see a bunch of East Coast Rabbis are selling them. Did you see that?
I don't think you even have to be Jewish.
TaxMan wrote But more importantly since the passage of Prop 13, California's ranking in education has dropped from first in the nation and the envy of the world, all the way down to 2nd to last of the 50 states.
That has nothing to do with Prop 13 and everything to do with open borders.
Parents expected their kids to do better in life than they did so they push just hard enough to do better.
Before open borders with Mexico, for most of us, our parents graduated from high school and many graduated from college...
Now with open borders with Mexico where the average education is something like 5th grade, graduating from high school is considered good for a vast percentage of the state. Add in many don't speak English compared to other parts of the country where most speak English, and it is easy to see why aspirations and test scores are lower in CA.
It would be interesting to recalculate the test scores for CA for students whose parents were born here and speak English at home. I betcha we rank much higher. Some of the top high schools in the Country are in CA also... They are in districts where parents might not speak English well from Taiwan, Japan, India, Korea, etc.... but they have PhD's and they expect their kids to get them also... so it is not language at home as much as parental aspirations for their kids.
Noodles says...They are in districts where parents might not speak English well from Taiwan, Japan, India, Korea, etc.... but they have PhD's and they expect their kids to get them also... so it is not language at home as much as parental aspirations for their kids.
Noodles, are you really laying the blame for California failing educational system on the low aspirations of the Mexicans?
You claim it's not a language problem as the Asians also have the same problem but they are OK because their aspirations are higher than the Mexicans.
You say the education problem is not because of funding cuts necessary by Prop 13 but directly due to the "open border with Mexico".
Are you really saying that the sad state of California education is DIRECTLY attributable to the influx of Mexicans?
Sure sounds like it...and sounds a bit racist too I might add.
And totally unsupportable.
Frankj: I don't live in CA, so I have a question about prop 13. Looking at Jeffchristies example, are property taxes fixed at 2% of value and allowed to increase only 2% per year? Is the 2% increase "automatic." And, when it passed, were homeowners assessed values "fixed" at the current assessment, or what they paid originally? (I guess that's 3-4 questions)
Secondly: comparing property taxes across state lines is tricky unless you account for the other sources of revenue that go into the state coffers. For example, doesn't Nevada get a lot from taxes on casinos? That might be a reason property taxes would be lower than a state that doesn't have gambling --- all other things being equal, but that's the thing, all other things rarely are equal.
Oregon passed a property tax limitation measure some years ago because the same thing was happening, property taxes were increasing at an alarming rate. Oregon has no sales tax, but a pretty hefty income tax rate that BB has referred to many times. And, they just raised it.
Washington state, which he refers to often as one of the states without an income tax, has reasonable property taxes and sales tax that runs from 7.6% to about 8% depending on where you are.
My point is, I don't think you can look at property taxes by themselves.
Noodles says...They are in districts where parents might not speak English well from Taiwan, Japan, India, Korea, etc.... but they have PhD's and they expect their kids to get them also... so it is not language at home as much as parental aspirations for their kids.
Noodles, are you really laying the blame for California failing educational system on the low aspirations of the Mexicans?
Only a racist assumes everyone who crosses an open Border with Mexico and does poorly in school is a Mexican.
If you looked at and or understood the data on the subject, then you can draw one of two conclusions.
Poverty and English speaking ability are not causes of poor test scores. They are symptoms.
Low test scores are either due to aspirational differences between parents or it is genetic. You can lose your job or be appointed by Obama as an economic advisor if you even hint test score differences are genetic so I'll go with parental aspirations. What say you?
Thanks yet again for your EXCEPTIONAL summary!
I couldn't let this go without "setting the record straight"...
Brinker said: And there's no question that when that positive stock market forecast was made in January.....it was a forecast that was a voice in the wilderness
Let me know if I left anything off in Bob Brinker's 2009 Market Outlook
Wait for me to add a graph before commenting.
"Poverty and English speaking ability are not causes of poor test scores. They are symptoms."
To whomever posted this: This is an example of fuzzy thinking. You are mixing up causes and symptoms.
A fever is a symptom of an illness. A poor test score is a symptom of something: lack of preparation, poor teaching, lack of English speaking and understanding ability.
If I went to France and took a test on grammar, I would fail it because I don't speak French. My score of zero would bring down the class average. It is as simple as that, there is no racial bias operating here.
Forgot to sign my comment -- frankj
Brinker neglected to mention that
his latest call was a cyclical
bull market within the secular bear. He missed the collapse of
the CB and the start of its rebound, both of which are supposed to be his field of expertise. He shoots his mouth off about education, healthcare,
politics and energy all from a far
right perspective. He screens
his calls so that only suckholes
are on the air. He has no commerece with contrary information.
Post a Comment