I know what you mean. I feel for the 20-year-olds in this environment, with not enough high-paying jobs or opportunities to start a business. Established business owners and experienced professionals have been doing great though. What Western economies need is a compe ive edge in high-impact areas that can't be automated or outsourced to cheaper locations. Governments need to partner with and incentivize the private sector to invest in digital innovation, renewable energy tech and smart cities. Pretty soon these technologies are going to be important to better manage large urban centers both in the West and elsewhere.
On a different note, 3 months ago I was deciding whether to pull the trigger on some investment property in London or move money into stocks, and then the folks here voted for Brexit and economic uncertainty. I see a Trump Presidency as a similar event - it may be a bitter pill for financially secure people like you as well as the financially insecure young. Certainly Trump can do a lot more damage than a left-leaning Supreme Court. And his tax cuts by themselves aren't going to make America compe ive.
I would suggest stupid people NOT take business risks. I would suggest that it hurt a little bit because it clearly does not when people go bankrupt multiple times. I would suggest moving into an cheap apartment. Do you think the people during the housing crisis deserved to lose their home due to stupidity and duplicity by mortgage companies while others don't? Do you think everyone should own a home? I don't.
I'm a little confused as to how USSC justices are going to set my tax rate.
And why do realtors get the most wide ranging tax breaks? There are other businesses that take just as much risk.
Last edited by pgardn; 10-20-2016 at 02:46 PM.
Somehow, I think our roles are reversed in this conversation - like I'm a liberal (arguing for leniency) and you're a conservative (taking the tough, heartless stance) - lol. We can't stop people from making mistakes - we can hope that they learn from their mistakes - but it's a consequence of the freedoms we enjoy - the freedom to fail. I remember one of my son's speech therapist - had a PHD in speech therapy - made good money but for the life of her, just couldn't handle her finances - late bill payments/penalties, checking acct overdrafts, stressed out and obviously, it wasn't because she was stupid - just poor decisions.
I'd like to comment on your earlier comment that I "complain about poor people sponging." As I've mentioned before regarding Obamacare, I don't blame the people who enroll, get physicals/labs/procedures done and then drop - I blame the politicians who write and pass these laws. Same with welfare - there should be some mechanism for limited time on welfare and training/education to get people off welfare. Welfare should be for people who fall on rough times - a temporary thing - not for a lifetime. For both ACA and welfare, I don't blame people for acting in their own self-interest - it's the poorly written laws/rules that allow people to take advantage of the system.
No, I don't think everyone should own a home - you should only buy one if you can afford it - and we're back to the poor laws/rules again that allowed them to qualify for those mortgages.
What makes you think I'm a liberal?
I do blame people who only look out for themselves. One of the horrible things that has happened to this country is the lack of sense of community, and helping other people. The government does not do a good job of this, and churches and charity groups can only handle so much. Neighbors should be able to tell neighbors " you are stupid, it's not this easy, it does not work like this. Lets go have a drink and go over this. Your frog farm in the desert is a mirage. Amphibians need water."
You can stamp on dreams that are not attainable.
Instead we get leechy Trumpets telling others how to fool people and make money doing it.
You mean real estate? I don't know - maybe it has to do with it being tangible and permanent - adding stability to communities and society as opposed to say a bond - just a promise to repay. I know the mortgage interest deduction helps to encourage home ownership. I'd say real estate is less risky than most (as long as the location is good) - people will always need to live somewhere. I think that airbnb will have a substantial effect on the hotel business.
Trump said he would get rid of the break as he has abused it to the detriment of others.
Well, more liberal than I am - no offense meant - the earlier convo just felt contrary :-)
Message boards have become the new neighborhoods. I have gotten lots of advice from homeschooling moms, moms with asthmatic/allergic kids, etc. but maybe females are more willing to share?
People are looking to the government to do what family, friends, neighbors and churches used to do. Maybe it's the mobility in the US - that we don't put down roots/ties like we used to. Close knit communities like the Amish still have that sense of community - they don't need insurance - if something happens, the whole community pitches in and helps.
What break? Do you mean the carryover loss - that's not just for real estate.
Obama going in on Rubio's cuban ass tbh
realtors get tax breaks?
im on an iPad, give me a break...realtors get tax breaks?
Developers get a tax break on properties in a number of ways.
There, I did not write real....... So my iPad would change it to realtor
No offense taken.
I am a liberation in Texas and a conservative in California. It's all relative
Damn it to my wife's iPad has become mine and it's changing all my words. You are is your... Liberation for liberal...
i think your (possessive) explanation is very reasonable.
OK I'll cut you some slack this time...
That was a ty talking point by him that he considered clever... that he wouldn't have taken those if she hadn't allowed it. He's saying he is morally bankrupt and if allowed, he'll do anything within his power to profit despite the negative effect for the rest of us. So what the solution, give him ultimate power? Then he can do anything he wants because hey, if "they" didn't want him abusing presidential powers, they should have changed the laws about them before he took office. They've had what, 200 years or more?
While I side with him on taking allowed tax breaks, I don't agree that being a slum lord over every aspect of your business because it skirts the law is excusable because hey, no one stopped me.
I totally agree.
But it clearly resonated with some peeps. He knows how to clean up a dirty system because he has played dirty extraordinarily well. I think being an "outsider" allowed him to fancy this strategy. , Clinton certainly knows dirty politics, but she would not dare brag on it as part of a requisite Ina resume to be president.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote