% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

  • yourdeadmeat69 yourdeadmeat69 Aug 17, 2011 5:18 AM Flag

    Want to See Real Estate Pop?

    Couple increased tax rates for whoever you'd like, from corporation to individual, and allow the real estate interest on mortgage tax deduction, and credit card deductions, you've made it painful for everyone to NOT own a house, maybe TWO or TEN, or not to buy on credit, which many do anyway, without mitigation of those 18% credit card rates. Banks make out, homeowners get a pop, it's built on demand, on the theme give it to the banks or the government, take your choice. Why we could even make interest rates above 9% usury, just like the first two hundred years of this country's history. Gee I wonder why all that worked so well in the fifties?

    Look at history: The interest rate deduction was built into the first income tax laws of 1894 and 1914.

    To work toward housing advances, that has to be coupled with enough PAIN if you don't own a home, exacerbated by low housing prices, and the feeling that owning a home is once again a good investment, because it doesn't "cost" to pay the interest on that home. Then watch 56.6& housing ownership, of which 13% are under water, straighten UP and fly right.
    The 20's low tax rates and margin costs, a stock market bubble ensued and the dust bowl ended it. The govt tried to balance books in the 30's, with 25% unemployed by raising rates, exempting corporations, to ENCOURAGE business development. Tax rates can't be TOO high, or it ducks the entire country under water by putting too big a hole in those pockets on the margin, including small business. A Goldilocks solution is in order. --"Just, right."

    To ENCOURAGE home ownership, raise the tax rate, pull working renters out of apartments, to chase real estate or pay a higher tax for not doing so, allow credit card interest rate debt to be deductible against a real "penalty" of real tax, watch real estate take off, put real money into the pockets of buyers of property and those who use credit, and it turbocharges the demand equation.

    It did after WWII, before the 80's mantra, borrow and spend replaced tax and spend.

    Look at the best most expansive time in America, the post WWII period, as an example.

    High PAIN for no home ownership, HIGH reward for home ownership.

    No pol's got the guts to do this. NONE. Not even the beloved RON PAUL. He's afraid what the government would do with increased revenue.

    I'm afraid what people do without incentive. We had it, we lost it. Couple that incentive with less govt spending, and budgets begin to meet revenues.

    Without being indentured to China by 2020.

    Not a sermon, just a thought.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • A wonderful diatribe...seemingly designed to obscure the simple fact that you are okay with the abuse of property rights, the foundational cornerstone upon which the Republic was initially established.

      One either has inviolate property rights, which include the fruits of one's labor and the profit from ones activities or one doesn't. If it is the latter case, then one doesn't live in a Republic.

      You can endorse the supposedly well meaning largesse enforced at the point of a gun, but in the doing you reveal for all to see your collectivist bent.

    • "Not a seromon, just a thought".

      I need more memory for my computer after these posts.

      <click> delete.

    • Again, 19th Century reality gives the lie to your rose colored scenario. The nineteenth century was a dismal near stone age existence with a few robber barons, who earned that name, at the top.

      They owned railroads and banks.

    • I'm not getting the threat of being coerced and violence you are. If that's all we're left for being selfish jerks who can only steal somebody else's oil, I mean, uh, stabilize the area from which it came, instead of spending time weaning ourselves away from oil over the last forty years, well maybe that time has come.

      Insurance is a pay pool that is always paid for by the healthy and collected under by the sick. That's the whole idea. Mandatory insurance follows "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few", and the selfish jerks who don't think they have to pay, wind up in emergency rooms and the sick pay for the healthy.

      This isn't freedom, it's freedom from responsibility.
      Worse, it's plain DUMB.

      Freedom isn't "I do what I want whatever the consequences".

      There are rules, so, hanging around the preschool after 3PM in your car offering candy to that little girl isn't tolerated. Some things just aren't freedom.

      Hanging around the emergency room with me paying 4X for your hangnail is about as bad.

      The guy we elected, however he emulates Jimmy Carter, got this one right. We changed from one nation, underinsured, and indivisibly selfish, to shared responsibility. I think that's better than Fabrezing the poor to salve a conscience and paying $500 a visit for going to the emergency room for some 22 year old uninsured who broke his arm buggering his chick upside down drunk one night. That's reality.

      As to whether I paid in enough to cover my particular need, I'm sorry, but 40 years at the equivalent of $1-6K a year, combined with the employer, for insurance?

      Compound that by the old 10.9% market pop per year and let's see, the square root of my shoe size multip...hey it's well over a $1,000,000 yeah, I paid my share. And even if I didn't, it's up to the insurance co to amortize healthy and sick premiums and make a profit, I don't do that stat--there are SUPPOSED to be more healthy in the pool than sick, more winners in the healthy chunk than losers in the pay pool. Many people live illness free and just drop dead at the end of the trail, what happens to their contributed zillions?

      Your argument just doesn't wash. Making your pocket change silver colored is fraud, having some winners and losers in your portfolio makes an investment profile, having winners and losers in an insurance business is measured by the whole, not the individual, and that's why premiums were invented.

      If you want to lament rediculous expenses for stupid things, I'm in the company socially of a lot of service people who come home from Afghonera, with tears in their eyes about how they saved some pre teen whose leg has been blown off by an IED.


      It screams in my brain, as this doey eyed trooper actually thinks, what he is doing is a worthwhile expense when it's actually evangelical capitalism and exploitation masquerading as freedom fighting.

      You want to lament the collective pool, look in the mirror that let the collective pool elect brain dead mentally deficient BUSH2.

      Now THAT was a waste of 8 years we are STILL paying for.

    • Wnat to see existing home sales pop? Offer more incentive in the way of deductability for already built homes, and let the market that can afford all those hand wrought changes pay a premium in price and less deductability.

    • I'm troubled that your model requires unconstitutional actions by government and the Federal Reserve offered as some sort of potential solution based on a bit of supposition and guesswork.

      I feel it is entirely unproductive to implement yet more illegitimate actions to solve the problems created by previous illegitimate interference in the economy.

      It really is time to go cold turkey.

    • "Moratoriams" on new real estate is too much the planned economy solution that is just as failure prone as "shorting stocks not allowed" or embargo's, let the "free" market decide within the walls of supply and demand, just set up demand to be worthwhile, and the system will straighten itself out.

      Half the process of winning, is just showing up. We need to supply something chasing the runner, and he'll show up with a pen and check in hand.

    • Year Tax Rate National Debt (in billions of $)
      1916 15% 4
      1917 67% 6
      1918 77% 15
      1919 73% 27
      1920 73% 26
      1921 73% 24
      1922 58% 23
      1923 58% 22
      1924 46% 21
      1925 25% 20
      1926 25% 19
      1927 25% 18
      1928 25% 17
      1929 25% 17
      1930 25% 16
      1931 25% 16
      1932 63% 19
      1933 63% 22
      1934 63% 27
      1935 63% 28
      1936 79% 33
      1937 79% 36
      1938 79% 37
      1939 79% 40
      1940 79% 43
      1941 81% 49
      1942 88% 72
      1943 88% 136
      1944 94% 201
      1945 94% 259
      1946 91% 269
      1947 91% 258
      1948 91% 252
      1949 91% 253
      1950 91% 257
      1951 91% 255
      1952 92% 259
      1953 92% 266
      1954 91% 271
      1955 91% 274
      1956 91% 273
      1957 91% 271
      1958 91% 276
      1959 91% 285
      1960 91% 286
      1961 91% 289
      1962 91% 298
      1963 91% 306
      1964 77% 312
      1965 70% 317
      1966 70% 320
      1967 70% 326
      1968 70% 348
      1969 70% 354
      1970 70% 371
      1971 70% 398
      1972 70% 427
      1973 70% 458
      1974 70% 475
      1975 70% 533
      1976 70% 620
      1977 70% 699
      1978 70% 771
      1979 70% 827
      1980 70% 908
      1981 70% 998
      1982 50% 1,142

      • 1 Reply to yourdeadmeat69
      • (We now enter the trillions of national debt dollars
        1983 50% 1,377
        1984 50% 1,572
        1985 50% 1,823
        1986 50% 2,125
        1987 38.5% 2,350
        1988 28% 2,602
        1989 28% 2,857
        1990 28% 3,233
        1991 31% 3,665
        1992 31% 4,065
        1993 39.6% 4,412
        1994 39.6% 4,693
        1995 39.6% 4,974
        1996 39.6% 5,225
        1997 39.6% 5,413
        1998 39.6% 5,526
        1999 39.6% 5,656
        2000 39.6% 5,674
        2001 39.1% 5,807
        2002 38.6% 6,228
        2003 35% 6,783
        2004 35% 7,379
        2005 35% 7,933
        2006 35% 8,507
        2007 35% 9,008
        2008 35% 10,025
        2009 35% 11,910
        2010 35% 13,562

24.29+0.44(+1.84%)Oct 25 4:00 PMEDT