U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 10-27-2011, 10:36 AM
2,515 posts, read 1,724,632 times
Reputation: 362


Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
Yes the bubbles were legislated but the bubbles were financed by third parties that are getting bailed out. If they couldn't make money buying the fraud then there would have been no fraud. Cut the purse strings and you cut the problem. No Money no fraud. You can't force someone to write a loan if they have no money to lend. You can’t legislate a bubble without the money to make it happen. No money no bubble. It is that easy. You can say it is this piece of legislation’s fault or you can say it is that piece of legislation’s fault. But they needed the money to lend to keep the bubble going and without it there would be no bubbles.
Words taken out of context lack their original meaning.

See how it works
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 10-31-2011, 01:39 PM
Location: The Land of Reason
13,300 posts, read 10,500,602 times
Reputation: 3541
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
not sure

but why would it matter

the military is a choice..it fits some..some it doesnt

I knew a few 'rich' kids during my time in the military who were in with me

I retired after 24 years in the Army
congrats I did 20 in the Air Force, and as cushy as many of the AF jobs are I did not see or hear of any enlisted rich kids. Like I said before the ones that go in with aspirations of going into politics and get out in less then 8 years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-31-2011, 01:50 PM
2,515 posts, read 1,724,632 times
Reputation: 362
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I read an article interesting stuff. Back in 2004 more than 40% of the sub prime MBS were bought by Freddy and fanny. I smell a long dead rat. You can finance a housing bubble with public money. Is that treason?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2011, 12:07 PM
26,591 posts, read 52,323,935 times
Reputation: 20438
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Reality FAIL. There is NO historical evidence anywhere that cost reductions lead to lower rents.

In California, Proposition 13 slashed property taxes an average of 57 percent, but rents did not fall, and angry renters succeeded in passing a number of local rent control ordinances.

In Massachusetts and Michigan, large property tax cuts did not result in lower rents.

Rent reductions, like all price reductions, require a first mover. Small landlords cannot be the first to lower rents, since they are already renting at full occupancy (they need to keep their units fully rented to avoid negative cash flow). Large landlords already have optimized rents and vacancy rates - they maximize profit at a non-zero vacancy rate - and have no reason to lower rents unless vacancy rates rise to undesirable levels. Since nobody has a reason to be the first to reduce rents, nobody does.
First I agree that rent is not based on cost for the most part... it is based on supply and demand.

That said... both my Uncle and my grade school teacher were renters at the time Prop 13 passed and both recieved immediate rent reductions...

My teacher made a big deal about it because the saving were enough for her to buy a plane ticket to Europe.

Fact is Prop 13 could not have passed without the support of a large number of non-home owners and it did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2011, 12:12 PM
26,591 posts, read 52,323,935 times
Reputation: 20438
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
There is no reality fail. Truth fail on your part. Property taxes were not lowered. There was a cap put on the increase.

Proposition 13 made less houses available, which is less competition, therefore rent stayed high. If demand is greater than supply prices go up. This explains why renters in California do not like proposition 13 and home owners do.
Increased on property tax were limited to 2 percent a year but when the house was sold the property tax was on the full value. Less homes changing hands, less turnover means less competition. Prices stay higher with less competition.
Why would a home owner move from a similar priced house to another if the property taxes are going to rise? If the house was sold there is the possibility it would be a rental. Since that house will not be sold there is a zero percent chance it will be a rental.
Instead of buying the same value house and moving closer to work and thereby saving money people have less incentive to do so. The property tax on the same type house is more expensive. Why save 50 a month in gas if your property taxes go up more than that per month?
Points of clarification...

Upon Prop 13 passage in 1978... property tax was rolled back to 1975 levels thus the previous huge increases many experienced were eliminated.

As to less homes changing hands... companion Props addressed this allowing seniors to down size without loosing their prop 13 status...

Third... as a home owner that bought during the housing peak... folks buying now have much lower assessments than I do... this may actually cause me to sell my home and buy another... several I know have done this because it is a win/win... lower purchase price equates with a lower locked in Prop 13 base year.

In some Oakland neighborhoods... homes are selling for the same price as 20 years ago... no Prop 13 advantage there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top