On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 04:36:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Crazy-ass federal or state policies like this simply don't happen in
Canada, for any type of consumer product or service. *Including
mortgages.

I never realised Bush was a socialist! This is a socialist idea.

Why don't you quote and reference, harry? Are you too afraid everyone will
see what a fool you are? Too late.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:52:13 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:05 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

Whenever I see "90 days same as cash" I understand there is money left
on the table if I pay cash and I ask for it. They usually find that
extra money.

Nope, not often, IME. Someone else is doing the offering. A few purchases
we've made have been price controlled, not a *dime* to be had anywhere (except
the free financing).

On Dec 25, 11:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. *Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. *You
don't get anything for nothing. *Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. * Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

There won't be if you don't ask. Especially these days. Dickering
it's called in your parlance I believe.
Only the stupid don't ask these days. If the answer's "No", go
elsewhere.

On Dec 26, 1:34*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:52:13 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:05 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. *Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. *You
don't get anything for nothing. *Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. * Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

Whenever I see "90 days same as cash" I understand there is money left
on the table if I pay cash and I ask for it. They usually find that
extra money.

Nope, not often, IME. *Someone else is doing the offering. *A few purchases
we've made have been price controlled, not a *dime* to be had anywhere (except
the free financing).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Price controlled"??? That's another socialist idea. Tell me more!
America is more socialist than you folks is letting on.

harry wrote:

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are
arguing from a false premise: there are many people that NEED
killing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Virtually all guns are designed to kill people. Especially hand guns,
they have no other purpose.

* Self defense
* Historical artifact
* Sport shooting
* Investment
* Collecting
* Disturbing the anti-gun fools
* Art
* Settling political disputes (i.e., a sitting Vice President killing the
former Secretary of the Treasury)

harry wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:11 am, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:25:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I no longer live in the UK, but I am *guessing* that picking a lock
still counts as "forced entry." And no, "squatters" (as the law
calls them) can be removed by proceedings *in civil court*.

I will take the Florida law any time. You can shoot them and have the
coroner drag the bodies out for you.

So if your kid goes into next door nieghbour's garden to retrieve a
ball, he can shoot him?

Sure.

A "serious threat to take life" is in the eye of the beholder. For example,
a finger poked against a jacket pocket is an ARMED robbery simply because
the victim THOUGHT the assailant had a gun.

Whether that threat will ultimately pass the "reasonable man" test is
another matter.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:46:26 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 26, 1:34*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:52:13 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:05 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. *Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. *You
don't get anything for nothing. *Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. * Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

Whenever I see "90 days same as cash" I understand there is money left
on the table if I pay cash and I ask for it. They usually find that
extra money.

Nope, not often, IME. *Someone else is doing the offering. *A few purchases
we've made have been price controlled, not a *dime* to be had anywhere (except
the free financing).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Price controlled"??? That's another socialist idea.

No, not socialist at all. The manufacturer controls the price, not the
government. Examples of controlled price products I've purchased recently,
Festool and Electrolux.

Tell me more!

A manufacturer CONTRACTS with retailers to represent him. Part of that
CONTRACT is that the seller will not sell the widget for less than $x (or
sometimes exactly $x). The intention is that competition is based on service,
not price.

America is more socialist than you folks is letting on.

Exactly the opposite, actually. It's a contract, freely entered, between the
producer and his agents. "Socialist" would be the government dictating the
terms of this contract. There is no requirement that the eventual buyer enter
into this contract. There are other products to buy, almost always cheaper if
that's what you want. As usual, harry, you have the world upside-down.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:44:00 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 25, 11:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. *Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. *You
don't get anything for nothing. *Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. * Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

There won't be if you don't ask. Especially these days. Dickering
it's called in your parlance I believe.

Irrelevant. It's usually not the retailer offering the financing deal. You
can try to squeeze that buffalo all you want but you won't get anything out of
it.

"Dickering" is what you would call it, harry. "Haggling" would be more common
on this side of the pond.

Only the stupid don't ask these days. If the answer's "No", go
elsewhere.

Fair enough. Go elsewhere.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:32:34 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:05:27 -0600, "
wrote:

Examples of controlled price products I've purchased recently,
Festool and Electrolux.

If I wanted a rebate for not using the "free" financing on a vacuum
that was price fixed, I would have him throw in a couple boxes of
bags.

My refrigerator doesn't use bags. Neither does my dishwasher. ;-)

We both understand there is a cost associated with free
financing.

Certainly, but it's not the same people paying. The retailer, in the above
case, is contractually bound to the pricing. In other cases, the interest is
being paid by the manufacturer (who doesn't see your end deal), by &bigbox
home office, or by the "bank", knowing that enough idiots won't pay on time to
make more than enough money to pay the interest for those who do. It's the
same deal as cash-back credit cards. I'll take their free money, too (though
not as much as I should).

On Dec 26, 5:15*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:44:00 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:54 pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

There won't be if you don't ask. Especially these days. *Dickering
it's called in your parlance I believe.

Irrelevant. *It's usually not the retailer offering the financing deal. *You
can try to squeeze that buffalo all you want but you won't get anything out of
it.

"Dickering" is what you would call it, harry. *"Haggling" would be more common
on this side of the pond. * *

Only the stupid don't ask these days. If the answer's "No", *go
elsewhere.

Fair enough. *Go elsewhere. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Haggling is what we would say. I thought dickering was you. Must be
watching too much Hollywood.

On Dec 26, 6:07*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:32:34 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:05:27 -0600, "
wrote:

*Examples of controlled price products I've purchased recently,
Festool and Electrolux.

If I wanted a rebate for not using the "free" financing on a vacuum
that was price fixed, I would have him throw in a couple boxes of
bags.

My refrigerator doesn't use bags. *Neither does my dishwasher. *;-)

We both understand there is a cost associated with free
financing.

Certainly, but it's not the same people paying. *The retailer, in the above
case, is contractually bound to the pricing. *In other cases, the interest is
being paid by the manufacturer (who doesn't see your end deal), by &bigbox
home office, or by the "bank", knowing that enough idiots won't pay on time to
make more than enough money to pay the interest for those who do. *It's the
same deal as cash-back credit cards. *I'll take their free money, too (though
not as much as I should).

If you use a card, the bank takes a cut, so if I pay cash, I should
have that.

"harry" wrote in message
...

The difference is that guns are designed to kill people. None of the
rest are.

My dad's shotgun was designed to kill ducks and pheasants, and his rifle
wasn't designed to shoot anything bigger than a rabbit or maybe a coyote.
The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically to shoot paper
targets. None of them ever shot a person. As usual you are more
comfortable with slogans than reality.

And an automatic pistol? Assault rifle?
Shoot paper targets, eh. A toy designed to brainwash children.
"Hunters" are sad *******s anyway.

You wrote, "guns are designed to kill people" and clearly some guns are not
designed to kill people, your statement was false. So now you leap to a
slur against hunters (I'm not one BTW) which is in keeping with your
character. Some hunters are sad *******s, and some are people whose shoes
you aren't fit to clean--probably more of the latter than the former.
You're all about waving your placard and chanting your slogan, there's
hardly a rational thought to be found in your posts.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

We may be talking past each other.

It happens, especially when two such world-class orators really get cooking.

I've never locked up my guns but, by the same token, I took my son to the
range when he was about five years old.

A friend of mine suffered a burglary some years back and lost a bunch of
guns. I was shocked when I visited him awhile later and saw guns literally
laying around his garage where they had been since his last hunting trip
months earlier (they at least had trigger locks). A slow-witted teenager
with a screwdriver could have opened that garage and taken off with a
hunting rifle or two without working up a sweat. I'm not worried about
*you* or your son, but burglars, or some idiot friend of a child--that's
another story. And it's such a little thing, a few hundred bucks gets you a
lockup that only a skilled burglar is going to be able to pop--it's peace of
mind if nothing else.

He learned at an early age the power and capacity of a firearm to inflict
great harm, just as he learned how to cross a street. As a consequence of
this training, he never got hit by a car in an intersection nor did he
unintentionally ever shoot anybody.

As you have pointed out, kids get hit crossing the street among other
things, so we can be quite sure there are parents out there doing a poor
job. I like the idea of such parents having their firearms locked up, it's
one small improvement in the odds.

I agree that negligence often leads to tragedy. The fact that gun is
involved in the negligence is, to my mind, irrelevant.

But that's a distinction in search of a purpose. Guns, power tools,
corrosive or poisonous cleaning products, swimming pools--you name it--the
issue isn't the specific vector for injury, it's the negligence. There are
simple, non-burdensome precautions we can take to reduce the likelihood of
nasty accidents, like not leaving dangerous items where kids can get their
hands on them. If your five year old son's friends had been coming over to
his birthday party in the back yard, you wouldn't have left a bottle of
bleach and cordless circular saw and a loaded gun kicking around, would you?

The fact that some children will die from a gunshot is no more a
reason to ban guns than children drowning is a sufficient reason to
ban swimming pools.

Can you quote me saying anything about banning guns? No? Then where
did this fly ball come from?

I apologize. The statement wasn't directed at you; it was more of a
universal truth that I blurt out from time to time (often to the
consternation of fellow passengers on the bus).

That wouldn't be the day-pass bus from Big Springs State Hospital, would it?

"harry" wrote in message
...

I expect the intruder had a gun too.

He took to his heels at the warning shot, so if he was armed he thought
twice about making an issue of it.

That's a big part of your problem, Harry, you try to stuff the rest of the
world through the microscopic framework of your biases. First you decide
what you want to believe, then you try to mangle reality to fit into that
little space. Brazil has gun laws way stricter than most of the U.S., yet
their murder rate is four times higher. The state of Vermont doesn't even
require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, yet their crime rate is
consistently the lowest or second lowest in America. Your belief that the
presence of guns will automatically lead to violent crime and harsh gun laws
will reduce violent crime simply isn't supported by what happens in the real
world, but there isn't a chance in hell of you ever admitting that--you're
driven by dogma above all else.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:42:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:07:06 -0600, "
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:32:34 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:05:27 -0600, "
wrote:

Examples of controlled price products I've purchased recently,
Festool and Electrolux.

If I wanted a rebate for not using the "free" financing on a vacuum
that was price fixed, I would have him throw in a couple boxes of
bags.

My refrigerator doesn't use bags. Neither does my dishwasher. ;-)

You were talking about price controlled products and gave an example
(Electrolux) that I accepted as being true). Appliances like fringes
and dishwashers are more like a Mexican market. Nobody pays full price
and everything is negotiable.

Electrolux makes high-end consumer kitchen appliances, in Tennessee, BTW. They
*are* price controlled. No one will give a dime's discount, or risk losing
the franchise.
http://www.electroluxappliances.com/...oor/ew28bs71is

We both understand there is a cost associated with free
financing.

Certainly, but it's not the same people paying. The retailer, in the above
case, is contractually bound to the pricing. In other cases, the interest is
being paid by the manufacturer (who doesn't see your end deal), by &bigbox
home office, or by the "bank", knowing that enough idiots won't pay on time to
make more than enough money to pay the interest for those who do. It's the
same deal as cash-back credit cards. I'll take their free money, too (though
not as much as I should).

With CDs and money markets paying fractions of a percent

The only money I have in such things (worse, a savings account) is emergency
money (though probably more than I should).

I would
rather have a box of vacuum cleaner bags. ;-)

Again, they don't fit my refrigerator. I don't even know if we have a vacuum
cleaner that uses bags. ;-)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:56:16 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 26, 6:07*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:32:34 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:05:27 -0600, "
wrote:

*Examples of controlled price products I've purchased recently,
Festool and Electrolux.

If I wanted a rebate for not using the "free" financing on a vacuum
that was price fixed, I would have him throw in a couple boxes of
bags.

My refrigerator doesn't use bags. *Neither does my dishwasher. *;-)

We both understand there is a cost associated with free
financing.

Certainly, but it's not the same people paying. *The retailer, in the above
case, is contractually bound to the pricing. *In other cases, the interest is
being paid by the manufacturer (who doesn't see your end deal), by &bigbox
home office, or by the "bank", knowing that enough idiots won't pay on time to
make more than enough money to pay the interest for those who do. *It's the
same deal as cash-back credit cards. *I'll take their free money, too (though
not as much as I should).

If you use a card, the bank takes a cut, so if I pay cash, I should
have that.

But you don't get that. I do get a cut, though less than you think is
"right". Sorry, you lose, I win.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:54:00 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 26, 5:15*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:44:00 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:54 pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:18:32 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"harry" wrote
There is no such thing as a zero loan. Somewhere along the line
someone is paying that interest money. If someone offers you a zero
interest loan it means the price on the product has been upped to
cover it. You are a very credulous person if you can't see that. You
don't get anything for nothing. Time to shop somewhere else.

Typical offer is either a 0% loan or a rebate of $2500 or so. Cash is
still king

That's typical for cars but zero interest loans on other items are quite
common (as in, ubiquitous), with no alternate rebate offers.

There won't be if you don't ask. Especially these days. *Dickering
it's called in your parlance I believe.

Irrelevant. *It's usually not the retailer offering the financing deal. *You
can try to squeeze that buffalo all you want but you won't get anything out of
it.

"Dickering" is what you would call it, harry. *"Haggling" would be more common
on this side of the pond. * *

Only the stupid don't ask these days. If the answer's "No", *go
elsewhere.

Fair enough. *Go elsewhere. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Haggling is what we would say. I thought dickering was you. Must be
watching too much Hollywood.

****, harry, we've all been telling you that for MONTHS.

Wonderfully accurate discussion about why we have such a mess in
America with home mortgages, and so why can't the American press
articulate the problem as well as the posters on this discussion
thread?

Also, it was Alan Greenspan who during the bubble period actually
publiclly stated that consumers should be getting ARM loans and not
fixed rate loans. When he said that, I was absolutely stunned.

One item that is missing in this discussion is that the real estate
bubble in the United States started in 1997. That being the Tax
Relief Act of 1997. If you study home prices in many U.S. markets,
you will see prices begin to take off starting in 1998, that was due
to the Tax Relief Act of 1997. And so home prices in the United
States should be at their 1997/1998 levels to be relatively "normal",
and so when you hear the "real estate experts" say a market is cheap,
compare that market's prices to their 1998 prices, and if they are
still above their 1998 prices then that market is still overpriced.
You will often hear folks say it should be at 1999 prices, and this is
how many of those folks pick the year "1999", they know about the Tax
Relief Act of 1997.

IMHO, we need to stop the damage caused by the Tax Relief Act of 1997
ASAP. Most of us are now paying more for our homes because of the Tax
Relief Act of 1997. It has created a generation that buys homes to
resell them within a few years to get the tax free income. I’ve seen
guys buy multiple homes, rent all but one of them, and then they
rotate thru the homes as their principal residence, staying in each
them for 2 years, selling it, taking the profit, and then move into
one of their remaining rentals, sell that after 2 years, and keep the
cycle going by buying more homes and churning thru existing homes.
I’ve seen many people do this, sometimes with just one home at a time,
and other times at the other extreme where they queued up multiple
homes at once. When things fell apart in 2008, I knew one woman who
was maybe 25, probably should have been making $50K or so at a decent
job, but instead she went to work for an Los Angeles mortgage company,
purchased 6 homes in LA... she was so overextended that when she
couldn't rent one of them, the entire mess came crashing down on her,
and that caused at least $1 million in mortgage losses from just one
person who was engaging in this destructive speculation. The same
destructive speculation that was also causing those of us who just
wanted to buy a home to live in to have to pay 2x to 3x what we would
have paid for it if the Tax Relief Act of 1997 never existed.

Below is summary of what the Tax Relief Act of 1997 did.

...."Starting in 1997, what's the best tax break available to Jane and
John Q. Public? If they're homeowners, it's selling their house.

Homeowners already know the many tax breaks that Uncle Sam offers,
most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Well, he
also has good tax news for home sellers: Most of them won't owe the
Internal Revenue Service a single dime.

When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in
profit if you're a single owner, twice that if you're married, and not
owe any capital gains taxes.

"Most people are not going to have a tax obligation unless their gain
is huge," says Bob Trinz, a senior tax analyst at RIA, which provides
tax information and software to tax professionals.

Some sellers are surprised by this break, especially if they've been
in their homes for a while. That's because before May 7, 1997, the
only way you could avoid paying taxes on your home-sale profit was to
use the money to buy another, more-expensive house within two years.
Sellers age 55 or older had one other option. They could take a once-
in-a-lifetime tax exemption of up to $125,000 in profits. And in all
instances, there was tax paperwork (Form 2119) to fill out to show
that you followed the rules.

But when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 became law, the home-sale tax
burden eased for millions of residential taxpayers. The rollover or
once-in-a-lifetime options were replaced with the current per-sale
exclusion amounts.

"There is some logic to this law change because most people under the
prior rules didn't recognize a taxable gain because they rolled it
over into another residence," says Trinz. "The change essentially
makes it easier to dispose of your residence."
Still some requirements to meet

If you used pre-1997 rules for residential sales, don't worry. That
doesn't disqualify you from claiming the exclusion on any residential
sales now. The law change applies to all sales since it took effect.

Another bonus of the new rules: You don't have to buy another home
with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in
style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those
designer shoes you never could afford before.
Even better, there's no limit on the number of times you can use the
home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of
$250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you
sell a home.

Ah, but we are talking taxes here. You did notice that phrase "in most
cases," didn't you? There's always a catch. Before you put a "For
Sale" sign in the yard, you need to make sure your house-sale
situation is one of those "most cases."

First, the property you're selling must be your principal residence.
That means you live in it. This tax break doesn't apply to a house or
other property that you have solely for investment purposes. In those
cases, the usual capital gains rules apply.

You can, however, turn a rental house into your primary residence,
making the sale of it eligible for the exclusion. This is accomplished
when you meet the IRS use and ownership tests: You own and live in the
home for two out of the five years before the sale."...

"harry" wrote in message
...


You have paid over the top for every one of those items. Dopes and
their money are easily parted. There are NO free meals in commerce.

Hogwash. I do my homework, I research prices and know how good a deal I'm
getting. So if I'm paying two thousand dollars below the average street
price of a car and the mfg. is loaning me the money with no interest
(because they have a backlog to clear out before the new model year) then
where is the bad part of that deal?

You're a prisoner of your dogma, incapable of even questioning your own
beliefs much less admitting when you're wrong.

On Dec 29, 2:01*pm, Chris Goldstein
wrote:
Wonderfully accurate discussion about why we have such a mess in
America with home mortgages, and so why can't the American press
articulate the problem as well as the posters on this discussion
thread?

Also, it was Alan Greenspan who during the bubble period actually
publiclly stated that consumers should be getting ARM loans and not
fixed rate loans. *When he said that, I was absolutely stunned.

One item that is missing in this discussion is that the real estate
bubble in the United States started in 1997. *That being the Tax
Relief Act of 1997. *If you study home prices in many U.S. markets,
you will see prices begin to take off starting in 1998, that was due
to the Tax Relief Act of 1997. *And so home prices in the United
States should be at their 1997/1998 levels to be relatively "normal",
and so when you hear the "real estate experts" say a market is cheap,
compare that market's prices to their 1998 prices, and if they are
still above their 1998 prices then that market is still overpriced.
You will often hear folks say it should be at 1999 prices, and this is
how many of those folks pick the year "1999", they know about the Tax
Relief Act of 1997.

IMHO, we need to stop the damage caused by the Tax Relief Act of 1997
ASAP. *Most of us are now paying more for our homes because of the Tax
Relief Act of 1997. *It has created a generation that buys homes to
resell them within a few years to get the tax free income. *I’ve seen
guys buy multiple homes, rent all but one of them, and then they
rotate thru the homes as their principal residence, staying in each
them for 2 years, selling it, taking the profit, and then move into
one of their remaining rentals, sell that after 2 years, and keep the
cycle going by buying more homes and churning thru existing homes.
I’ve seen many people do this, sometimes with just one home at a time,
and other times at the other extreme where they queued up multiple
homes at once. *When things fell apart in 2008, I knew one woman who
was maybe 25, probably should have been making $50K or so at a decent
job, but instead she went to work for an Los Angeles mortgage company,
purchased 6 homes in LA... she was so overextended that when she
couldn't rent one of them, the entire mess came crashing down on her,
and that caused at least $1 million in mortgage losses from just one
person who was engaging in this destructive speculation. *The same
destructive speculation that was also causing those of us who just
wanted to buy a home to live in to have to pay 2x to 3x what we would
have paid for it if the Tax Relief Act of 1997 never existed.

Below is summary of what the Tax Relief Act of 1997 did.

..."Starting in 1997, what's the best tax break available to Jane and
John Q. Public? If they're homeowners, it's selling their house.

Homeowners already know the many tax breaks that Uncle Sam offers,
most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Well, he
also has good tax news for home sellers: Most of them won't owe the
Internal Revenue Service a single dime.

When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in
profit if you're a single owner, twice that if you're married, and not
owe any capital gains taxes.

"Most people are not going to have a tax obligation unless their gain
is huge," says Bob Trinz, a senior tax analyst at RIA, which provides
tax information and software to tax professionals.

Some sellers are surprised by this break, especially if they've been
in their homes for a while. That's because before May 7, 1997, the
only way you could avoid paying taxes on your home-sale profit was to
use the money to buy another, more-expensive house within two years.
Sellers age 55 or older had one other option. They could take a once-
in-a-lifetime tax exemption of up to $125,000 in profits. And in all
instances, there was tax paperwork (Form 2119) to fill out to show
that you followed the rules.

But when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 became law, the home-sale tax
burden eased for millions of residential taxpayers. The rollover or
once-in-a-lifetime options were replaced with the current per-sale
exclusion amounts.

"There is some logic to this law change because most people under the
prior rules didn't recognize a taxable gain because they rolled it
over into another residence," says Trinz. "The change essentially
makes it easier to dispose of your residence."
Still some requirements to meet

If you used pre-1997 rules for residential sales, don't worry. That
doesn't disqualify you from claiming the exclusion on any residential
sales now. The law change applies to all sales since it took effect.

Another bonus of the new rules: You don't have to buy another home
with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in
style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those
designer shoes you never could afford before.
Even better, there's no limit on the number of times you can use the
home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of
$250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you
sell a home.

Ah, but we are talking taxes here. You did notice that phrase "in most
cases," didn't you? There's always a catch. Before you put a "For
Sale" sign in the yard, you need to make sure your house-sale
situation is one of those "most cases."

First, the property you're selling must be your principal residence.
That means you live in it. This tax break doesn't apply to a house or
other property that you have solely for investment purposes. In those
cases, the usual capital gains rules apply.

You can, however, turn a rental house into your primary residence,
making the sale of it eligible for the exclusion. This is accomplished
when you meet the IRS use and ownership tests: You own and live in the
home for two out of the five years before the sale."...

Congress to help the deficit is talking or ending all the tax
deductions on home ownership, including the mortage interest
deduction.....

On Dec 29, 11:01*am, Chris Goldstein
wrote:
Wonderfully accurate discussion about why we have such a mess in
America with home mortgages, and so why can't the American press
articulate the problem as well as the posters on this discussion
thread?

Also, it was Alan Greenspan who during the bubble period actually
publiclly stated that consumers should be getting ARM loans and not
fixed rate loans. *When he said that, I was absolutely stunned.

[...]

Why stunned? Anything that comes out of a Libertarian's mouth is by
definition untrustworthy.

Remember how shocked, shocked! Greenspan was, publicly, at the
financial collapse. The markets weren't working as he believed they
should have. Tfui! BTW, ever saw a black or poor Liberatarian?

HB

On Dec 21, 8:27*am, harry wrote:
Canadian property bubble, followed by general collapse due to
dependency on exports to the USA.
After that Australia.
Saw it on Russia Today so it must be right. Kieser report.
He's been pretty accurate so far. *?

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2010/..._lnk1%7C192609

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:30:54 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:37:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 21, 8:27*am, harry wrote:
Canadian property bubble, followed by general collapse due to
dependency on exports to the USA.
After that Australia.
Saw it on Russia Today so it must be right. Kieser report.
He's been pretty accurate so far. *?

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2010/..._lnk1%7C192609

Depending on where you live, the excess supply of houses was estimated
to be between 5 and 10 years in 2007. They simply built too many that
were gobbled up by speculators believing things would always go up.
They are still working through that excess inventory.
If they drop the mortgage deduction on second homes that will get
worse.

If interest rates go up significantly it will get much worse. However, the
building trades will essentially cease to exist.

If the mortgage deduction on the primary home was dropped you would
see another 2007 type crash. At that point the only people who would
get a deduction would be landlords on rental property (Schedule C
business expense). One of the biggest tax incentives to own would be
gone.

Tax incentive, yes. Biggest incentive, no.