I have a few simple questions that I thought I'd ask. From what Ive read about the history of the housing crash:
Clinton asks the banks to ease credit restrictions on house loans so everybody can engage in "The American Dream". What a great guy.
But there's just one little problem here THAT EVERYBODY OVERLOOKED. This will lead to forclosures because people would not be able to pay their mortgages.
Now some of the people, like bank presidents and real estste people, didn't they go to great colleges and universities to study these business practices?
OK, so now the crash not only affects the people with shaky credit, as they weren't ready yet to take on home ownership, but it also affects the people with good credit as they are now in possesion of a house who loses its value.
When the dust settles, what we are left with is vast half empty communities, generally in the suburbs that in some cases will be torn down.
But the most important thing here is: The government now owns the land. By forclosures, Americans own less and less.
I have a few simple questions that I thought I'd ask. From what Ive read about the history of the housing crash:
Clinton asks the banks to ease credit restrictions on house loans so everybody can engage in "The American Dream". What a great guy.
But there's just one little problem here THAT EVERYBODY OVERLOOKED. This will lead to forclosures because people would not be able to pay their mortgages.
Now some of the people, like bank presidents and real estste people, didn't they go to great colleges and universities to study these business practices?
OK, so now the crash not only affects the people with shaky credit, as they weren't ready yet to take on home ownership, but it also affects the people with good credit as they are now in possesion of a house who loses its value.
When the dust settles, what we are left with is vast half empty communities, generally in the suburbs that in some cases will be torn down.
But the most important thing here is: The government now owns the land. By forclosures, Americans own less and less.
It was more than just clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and a few other politicians were major involved in some cover up.
Don't forget about the property taxes on these forclosed homes not getting paid. Thus leaving cities and towns short on cash to pay for public services.
In my opinion, it was gas prices that was the straw that broke the donkey's back so to speak. Once people had to spend their extra jingle on fuel and not on goods or vacations, it exponentially doomed the economy. Thats just my opinion though.
It was more than just clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and a few other politicians were major involved in some cover up.
Don't forget about the property taxes on these forclosed homes not getting paid. Thus leaving cities and towns short on cash to pay for public services.
In my opinion, it was gas prices that was the straw that broke the donkey's back so to speak. Once people had to spend their extra jingle on fuel and not on goods or vacations, it exponentially doomed the economy. Thats just my opinion though.
Im assuming those at the top of lending institutions went to college. Why did they go through with risky loans that would bring down everything like a house of cards?
Im assuming those at the top of lending institutions went to college. Why did they go through with risky loans that would bring down everything like a house of cards?
sorry but you never own the land or house you purchase even when its paid off. Stop making property tax payments and see what happens.
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your community, so you need roads and services to use that land.
A similar flawed concept would be that since you need to put on new tires, get oil changes or have a vehicle tax that you dont own a car.
Of course you own the land and if you WANTED to not pay property tax on the property then move somewhere that you dont have property tax.
There are places which exist that have little to no property and local taxes and most of them you will have higher costs for providing your own services then if you were to live in an established community.
Years ago I lived for a short time in a very rural part of the country and the cost to dig a well, keep up a road, fences etc are very high..but for sure those property taxes are little to nothing.
sorry but you never own the land or house you purchase even when its paid off. Stop making property tax payments and see what happens.
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your community, so you need roads and services to use that land.
A similar flawed concept would be that since you need to put on new tires, get oil changes or have a vehicle tax that you dont own a car.
Of course you own the land and if you WANTED to not pay property tax on the property then move somewhere that you dont have property tax.
There are places which exist that have little to no property and local taxes and most of them you will have higher costs for providing your own services then if you were to live in an established community.
Years ago I lived for a short time in a very rural part of the country and the cost to dig a well, keep up a road, fences etc are very high..but for sure those property taxes are little to nothing.
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from
the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your
community, so you need roads and services to use that land. ---------- i pay 12k a year...i have no kids in school. knock on wood...i have never needed police or fire or any other municipal services outside of recycling or snow plowing.
i'm just not sure why this is justified on any level. yes i know i chose to live in NJ and where i live...which is mostly farmland with absolutely no franchise restaurants or stores allowed in the town...all mom and pop shops (which i like)
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from
the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your
community, so you need roads and services to use that land. ---------- i pay 12k a year...i have no kids in school. knock on wood...i have never needed police or fire or any other municipal services outside of recycling or snow plowing.
i'm just not sure why this is justified on any level. yes i know i chose to live in NJ and where i live...which is mostly farmland with absolutely no franchise restaurants or stores allowed in the town...all mom and pop shops (which i like)
anything that distorts market reality creates a bubble...mostly cheap rates. bubbles aren't natural, neither is a business cycle. we aren't supposed to have booms and busts which really only happen when liquidity or capital is pulled from the market
anything that distorts market reality creates a bubble...mostly cheap rates. bubbles aren't natural, neither is a business cycle. we aren't supposed to have booms and busts which really only happen when liquidity or capital is pulled from the market
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from
the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your
community, so you need roads and services to use that land. ---------- i pay 12k a year...i have no kids in school. knock on wood...i have never needed police or fire or any other municipal services outside of recycling or snow plowing.
i'm just not sure why this is justified on any level. yes i know i chose to live in NJ and where i live...which is mostly farmland with absolutely no franchise restaurants or stores allowed in the town...all mom and pop shops (which i like)
We have discussed this before if I recall. You are correct that the choice you made where to live equates to property taxes you pay..you had that choice and you admit that. There are benefits of living there as we have discussed..schools are better (although not up to your level of expectation) your family makes a better living, close to things you enjoy..so you pay for those benefits.
I could go and live downtown PHX in a seedy area that had a cheaper house price, lower taxes and that would be my choice..it would have its positives and negatives. You also could live in the very same city you do but in a lower tax area or a cheaper house..you could live in another part of the country with lower property taxes..but you would give up benefits you receive.
Its all relative..you choose what works best for you and hopefully the financial and non-financial decision works well for you.
With regard to the use of benefit..we have gone over that too..you were raised and took that benefit, your parents paid for their benefit and you are paying for yours..you could also RENT where you might not have as high of a net cost (subtracting tax benefit etc).
There is a cost of living which has a correlation to demand..you are choosing a higher cost of living area for a variety of reasons, if that cost ends up being too high then you have to choose to live somewhere else.
If you want to avoid property taxes, move to a rural area with little to no taxes, move to the mountains and home school the kids..dig your own well, maintain your own roads, bring power and gas to your property..those are choices available to you.
See that just makes no sense to me, you benefit from
the services where your land sits, it is not just you in your
community, so you need roads and services to use that land. ---------- i pay 12k a year...i have no kids in school. knock on wood...i have never needed police or fire or any other municipal services outside of recycling or snow plowing.
i'm just not sure why this is justified on any level. yes i know i chose to live in NJ and where i live...which is mostly farmland with absolutely no franchise restaurants or stores allowed in the town...all mom and pop shops (which i like)
We have discussed this before if I recall. You are correct that the choice you made where to live equates to property taxes you pay..you had that choice and you admit that. There are benefits of living there as we have discussed..schools are better (although not up to your level of expectation) your family makes a better living, close to things you enjoy..so you pay for those benefits.
I could go and live downtown PHX in a seedy area that had a cheaper house price, lower taxes and that would be my choice..it would have its positives and negatives. You also could live in the very same city you do but in a lower tax area or a cheaper house..you could live in another part of the country with lower property taxes..but you would give up benefits you receive.
Its all relative..you choose what works best for you and hopefully the financial and non-financial decision works well for you.
With regard to the use of benefit..we have gone over that too..you were raised and took that benefit, your parents paid for their benefit and you are paying for yours..you could also RENT where you might not have as high of a net cost (subtracting tax benefit etc).
There is a cost of living which has a correlation to demand..you are choosing a higher cost of living area for a variety of reasons, if that cost ends up being too high then you have to choose to live somewhere else.
If you want to avoid property taxes, move to a rural area with little to no taxes, move to the mountains and home school the kids..dig your own well, maintain your own roads, bring power and gas to your property..those are choices available to you.
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent,
could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder
that results from such systems and such efforts.
But what do the socialists do?
They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others
— and even from themselves —
under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association.
Because we ask so little from the law
— only justice —
the socialists thereby assume that we reject
fraternity, unity, organization, and association.
The socialists brand us with the name individualist.
forced organization, not natural organization.
We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us,
not free association.
We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity.
We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more
than deprive persons of individual responsibility.
We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent,
could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder
that results from such systems and such efforts.
But what do the socialists do?
They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others
— and even from themselves —
under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association.
Because we ask so little from the law
— only justice —
the socialists thereby assume that we reject
fraternity, unity, organization, and association.
The socialists brand us with the name individualist.
forced organization, not natural organization.
We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us,
not free association.
We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity.
We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more
than deprive persons of individual responsibility.
We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.