From CNN:
Stores don't sell your favorite product anymore. That's on purposeQuotePepperoni was getting out of hand at Hormel.
The food giant last year was selling 71 different versions of its Hormel Pepperoni brand. There was diced pepperoni. Turkey pepperoni. Mini-slices of turkey pepperoni. Pepperoni sticks. Pepperoni with 50% less sodium. Pepperoni with 25% less fat. Thick-sliced pepperoni. The list goes on.
But Hormel is removing, consolidating or repackaging 25% of the items as part of a company-wide strategy to prune unprofitable items across dozens of its brands like Spam, Applegate and Jennie-O, the company said in June. Around 80% of Hormel's profit comes from a small number of products, like Hormel Bacon and Fire Braised-brand meats, while the rest of its tens of thousands of items often drive up costs and sit untouched in warehouses and on shelves for long periods.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/business/levis-dollar-general-product-choices/index.html)
Must be a slow news day. Is anyone really surprised that if not enough of a product is sold, it is discontinued?
It's as if CNN hires people that don't understand how the basic parts of the economy work.
I've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.
If this no longer applies, something must have changed.
Quote from: hotdogPi on November 11, 2024, 09:04:16 AMI've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.
If this no longer applies, something must have changed.
After you've squeezed out the competition, there's no reason to continue to lose profits. I figure this has been going on since the dawn of capitalism playing to differentiation.
Also CNN: continue to buy more and different objects through our "Underscored" area which looks like news but thinly veiled advertising; don't forget to put it all on that new credit card offer that has FOMO in the big print, but desperate restrictions and yearly fees in the small print.
Quote from: GaryV on November 11, 2024, 07:45:25 AMMust be a slow news day. Is anyone really surprised that if not enough of a product is sold, it is discontinued?
More interesting to me than 99% of the news stories I see nowadays.
Quote from: SectorZ on November 11, 2024, 08:51:33 AMIt's as if CNN hires people that don't understand how the basic parts of the economy work.
Sounds like much of the media in general. They don't need to have knowledge. They just need to get people in an uproar.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2024, 11:33:39 AMSounds like much of the media in general. They don't need to have knowledge. They just need to get people in an uproar.
Anything to attract eyeballs to the all-important advertising and, oh yeah,
the actual programming.
Quote from: hotdogPi on November 11, 2024, 09:04:16 AMI've heard that the reason companies did sell different types before even if they lose money is so that it fills more shelf space so competitors can't get their brands on the market.
If this no longer applies, something must have changed.
Maybe it's been a sign of the extent of market consolidation. If you now own most of your "competitors", there's no need to crowd them off the shelf.
COVID might be a factor too. During the pandemic, many product varieties were discontinued to simplify production and keep supply chains, though still strained, from being as bad as they were in March 2020. If they found that the money spent on the other varieties was actually more than the amount made from pushing competitors aside, then the trend would continue.
Yet our stores around here haven't sold Hormel in years. They sell some crappy brand instead.
So sick of not being able to get anything around here.
IMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors. How? As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax. This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies. The big conglomerates then buy them up. When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat. This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today. It is a very sad process, indeed.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 12, 2024, 01:06:08 PMIMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors. How? As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax. This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies. The big conglomerates then buy them up. When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat. This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today. It is a very sad process, indeed.
Mike
1) Taxes are highest on cash-in-bank, and it's not the same for tiny businesses as medium-to-large ones. Anyone with that much wealth puts in a trust or passes on wealth incrementally to avoid large tax burden hassles. Stop being disingenuous about this subject.
2) Whatever happened to working hard and earning it? Does it only apply to those who
do not have a massive inheritance or accumulated wealth?
3) Many descendants have varying interest in taking up the family business.
Quote from: formulanone on November 12, 2024, 01:36:18 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 12, 2024, 01:06:08 PMIMHO, this is yet another beyond scathing indictment of the estate ('death') tax - over the long term, it works to efficiently eliminate the big conglomerates' scrappy small, often family owned, competitors. How? As the small companies' patriarchs die, their heirs must raise the funds needed to pay that tax. This is often done by (reluctantly) selling off valuable assets of those companies. The big conglomerates then buy them up. When a major shareholder of a big conglomerate dies, his or her HEIRS have to pay that tax on his or her shares, but the big conglomerate itself continues on without skipping a beat. This plays out over many decades, resulting in what you see today. It is a very sad process, indeed.
Mike
1) Taxes are highest on cash-in-bank, and it's not the same for tiny businesses as medium-to-large ones. Anyone with that much wealth puts in a trust or passes on wealth incrementally to avoid large tax burden hassles. Stop being disingenuous about this subject.
2) Whatever happened to working hard and earning it? Does it only apply to those who do not have a massive inheritance or accumulated wealth?
3) Many descendants have varying interest in taking up the family business.
I stand by my words.
Mike
Taxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Counterpoint: why should people get an extra advantage just because they were lucky enough to have rich parents?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
Can't say I'm a fan of taxing the estate of the dead. That income (if obtained legally) was already taxed. Taxing it again post-mortem is just government double dipping.
And yes, I have received an inheritance once. It was after my mother's death in Florida circa 2015. It wasn't anywhere close to being something that would make one "rich" and I obviously I would prefer she was alive (lung cancer). All the same, the lack of a state level estate tax allowed me and my siblings to decide what to do with everything (basically just reinvested it) in a relatively straight forward manner. Probably didn't hurt that mom had her will written out well before she got sick and there wasn't in the way of probate.
The current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.
And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2024, 11:31:47 AMThe current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.
And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.
Would you reconsider if we taxed capital gains the same as income? I am all for that, and in fact would even reverse it a bit because working for money should not be penalized over accumulating it.
Quote from: SectorZ on November 13, 2024, 12:24:10 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2024, 11:31:47 AMThe current estate tax exemption is something like $13 million for an individual and $26 million for a couple. Getting rid of it would cost the federal government more than $20 billion annually.
And most estate taxes are not made up of income that would be double taxed, but unrealized gains that have not been. Furthermore, since realized capital gains and dividend income is taxed lower than earned income, and that's often the primary source of income for the wealthiest among us, I don't think an estate tax is all that "unfair" in that regard.
Would you reconsider if we taxed capital gains the same as income? I am all for that, and in fact would even reverse it a bit because working for money should not be penalized over accumulating it.
I would not. No one is getting penalized for over accumulating anything. The person who did the accumulating is dead, and their heirs didn't "work for money."
You're forgetting state inheritance and estate taxes. I've mentioned this before, but nearly 25 years ago, I was the executor of the estate of my mom's first cousin. He was not married, had no children, and his will split his estate among three relatives, with a couple of items going to my dad.
He had retired, lived frugally, and had a modest amount of savings. I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for $45,000 before his heirs received a dime.
That's beyond highway robbery if you ask me.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
How so?
Mike
A further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
I disagree. As Max said, that income was already taxed to hell and back.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
In every other country, the government calculates your tax return themselves and then sends you the bill or refund without you having to do anything. We still have to file 1040s and junk because Intuit bribes the government to make us keep doing it, since otherwise TurboTax wouldn't be needed. If you think about it, it's really stupid, because of course the government is calculating the tax return on their end already, because how else would they know if you were trying to cheat? We're basically putting in the time, effort, and money to duplicate effort just so Robert W. Intuit-TurboTax IV, Esq. can buy his ninety-sixth yacht.
As usual.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2024, 07:08:37 PMWe're basically putting in the time, effort, and money to duplicate effort just so Robert W. Intuit-TurboTax IV, Esq. can buy his ninety-sixth yacht.
AIUI, that is actually the Bloch family, which stands behind H.R. Block and Intuit.
They do donate generously to the Nelson-Atkins in Kansas City, though I agree with the general point that tax preparation should not be encumbered by rent-seeking behavior.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2024, 07:15:44 PMAIUI, that is actually the Bloch family, which stands behind H.R. Block and Intuit.
How dare you derail my lazy attempt at a joke with facts. :P
"Corporation with goal of making profit attempts to make profit"
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2024, 07:08:37 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
In every other country, the government calculates your tax return themselves and then sends you the bill or refund without you having to do anything. We still have to file 1040s and junk because Intuit bribes the government to make us keep doing it, since otherwise TurboTax wouldn't be needed. If you think about it, it's really stupid, because of course the government is calculating the tax return on their end already, because how else would they know if you were trying to cheat? We're basically putting in the time, effort, and money to duplicate effort just so Robert W. Intuit-TurboTax IV, Esq. can buy his ninety-sixth yacht.
As usual.
The complicated tax code was around well before TurboTax. People have been crying for simplified tax returns well before TurboTax. The government could care less about TurboTax. They have their own job positions to fulfill.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 13, 2024, 07:47:28 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2024, 07:08:37 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
In every other country, the government calculates your tax return themselves and then sends you the bill or refund without you having to do anything. We still have to file 1040s and junk because Intuit bribes the government to make us keep doing it, since otherwise TurboTax wouldn't be needed. If you think about it, it's really stupid, because of course the government is calculating the tax return on their end already, because how else would they know if you were trying to cheat? We're basically putting in the time, effort, and money to duplicate effort just so Robert W. Intuit-TurboTax IV, Esq. can buy his ninety-sixth yacht.
As usual.
The complicated tax code was around well before TurboTax. People have been crying for simplified tax returns well before TurboTax. The government could care less about TurboTax. They have their own job positions to fulfill.
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free
QuoteBut the success of TurboTax rests on a shaky foundation, one that could collapse overnight if the U.S. government did what most wealthy countries did long ago and made tax filing simple and free for most citizens.
For more than 20 years, Intuit has waged a sophisticated, sometimes covert war to prevent the government from doing just that, according to internal company and IRS documents and interviews with insiders. The company unleashed a battalion of lobbyists and hired top officials from the agency that regulates it. From the beginning, Intuit recognized that its success depended on two parallel missions: stoking innovation in Silicon Valley while stifling it in Washington.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2024, 05:40:49 PMYou're forgetting state inheritance and estate taxes. I've mentioned this before, but nearly 25 years ago, I was the executor of the estate of my mom's first cousin. He was not married, had no children, and his will split his estate among three relatives, with a couple of items going to my dad.
He had retired, lived frugally, and had a modest amount of savings. I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for $45,000 before his heirs received a dime.
That's beyond highway robbery if you ask me.
I don't know if the law has changed in the last 25 years but it looks like the issue here is that Kentucky has a particularly annoying inheritance tax where if you're a spouse, sibling, parent, child, or grandchild of the deceased you can inherit unlimited assets from them without triggering any state taxes. However, anyone not in that club has to start paying taxes to inherit any more than $1000 worth of assets, which is not a high bar. This... yeah, for someone who dies unmarried and childless means the state is basically guaranteed to be taking a cut of their estate. It's a lousy structure.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on November 13, 2024, 07:08:20 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
I disagree. As Max said, that income was already taxed to hell and back.
Nope. Mostly unrealized gains that weren't taxed. The rest being mostly realized gains and dividends taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 06:51:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
How so?
Because we should reward those that earn their income. Not inherit it.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2024, 08:34:21 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2024, 05:40:49 PMYou're forgetting state inheritance and estate taxes. I've mentioned this before, but nearly 25 years ago, I was the executor of the estate of my mom's first cousin. He was not married, had no children, and his will split his estate among three relatives, with a couple of items going to my dad.
He had retired, lived frugally, and had a modest amount of savings. I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for $45,000 before his heirs received a dime.
That's beyond highway robbery if you ask me.
I don't know if the law has changed in the last 25 years but it looks like the issue here is that Kentucky has a particularly annoying inheritance tax where if you're a spouse, sibling, parent, child, or grandchild of the deceased you can inherit unlimited assets from them without triggering any state taxes. However, anyone not in that club has to start paying taxes to inherit any more than $1000 worth of assets, which is not a high bar. This... yeah, for someone who dies unmarried and childless means the state is basically guaranteed to be taking a cut of their estate. It's a lousy structure.
Yeah that is hardly the norm for most states.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 06:51:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
How so?
Mike
Not having an entrenched aristocracy?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2024, 09:28:09 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 06:51:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
How so?
Because we should reward those that earn their income. Not inherit it.
Why is that a problem?
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2024, 08:27:40 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on November 13, 2024, 07:47:28 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2024, 07:08:37 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
In every other country, the government calculates your tax return themselves and then sends you the bill or refund without you having to do anything. We still have to file 1040s and junk because Intuit bribes the government to make us keep doing it, since otherwise TurboTax wouldn't be needed. If you think about it, it's really stupid, because of course the government is calculating the tax return on their end already, because how else would they know if you were trying to cheat? We're basically putting in the time, effort, and money to duplicate effort just so Robert W. Intuit-TurboTax IV, Esq. can buy his ninety-sixth yacht.
As usual.
The complicated tax code was around well before TurboTax. People have been crying for simplified tax returns well before TurboTax. The government could care less about TurboTax. They have their own job positions to fulfill.
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free
QuoteBut the success of TurboTax rests on a shaky foundation, one that could collapse overnight if the U.S. government did what most wealthy countries did long ago and made tax filing simple and free for most citizens.
For more than 20 years, Intuit has waged a sophisticated, sometimes covert war to prevent the government from doing just that, according to internal company and IRS documents and interviews with insiders. The company unleashed a battalion of lobbyists and hired top officials from the agency that regulates it. From the beginning, Intuit recognized that its success depended on two parallel missions: stoking innovation in Silicon Valley while stifling it in Washington.
Such a ruling would also apply to, for example, the costs realized by an employer's payroll department in complying with withholding rules. EvERY cost of compliance to the law would be covered.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 10:36:46 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2024, 09:28:09 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 06:51:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 09:28:51 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2024, 08:46:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2024, 02:27:49 PMTaxing inherited wealth is most definitely a good thing in this country. And if that means small business are snapped up by larger ones, so be it.
Why should the government get a cut of something just because you have the misfortune of dying?
Because it's good for society at large.
How so?
Because we should reward those that earn their income. Not inherit it.
Why is that a problem?
Because the whole point of giving any person or entity a tax break is because they provide a service that is deemed beneficial to society at large. We give tax deductions for mortgage interest to encourage home ownership. Ditto for parents raising children. We tax dividends less than earned income to encourage business owners to reinvest in their business and create jobs. There are countless examples of this.
Those who inherit wealth didn't do any of this. They just had wealthy ancestors.
And your problem with that is (raw class envy?) ??
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 10:41:36 AMSuch a ruling would also apply to, for example, the costs realized by an employer's payroll department in complying with withholding rules. EvERY cost of compliance to the law would be covered.
Mike
"We rule part of the constitution unconstitutional because it's too expensive" would be a pretty fantastical interpretation by anyone who was interested in doing the job of SCOTUS competently.
"To provide and maintain a Navy" is also pretty damn expensive, but it's one of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, so it is generally agreed that the price isn't relevant to whether the government can or can't do it. What money should be spent by who is a political question, not a judicial one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2024, 11:03:12 AMQuote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2024, 07:01:58 PMA further item that is on my radar screen, In light of the USSupremes' 'Chevron' ruling from earlier this year, What if some little guy or gal similarly makes a federal case out of the imposition of the income tax, claiming that the feds have to cover all of his or her costs of complying with the law, and the Supremes side with the plaintiff, rendering 16A unenforceable?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 10:41:36 AMSuch a ruling would also apply to, for example, the costs realized by an employer's payroll department in complying with withholding rules. EvERY cost of compliance to the law would be covered.
Mike
"We rule part of the constitution unconstitutional because it's too expensive" would be a pretty fantastical interpretation by anyone who was interested in doing the job of SCOTUS competently.
"To provide and maintain a Navy" is also pretty damn expensive, but it's one of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, so it is generally agreed that the price isn't relevant to whether the government can or can't do it. What money should be spent by who is a political question, not a judicial one.
How is my contention different from the Supremes putting the kibosh on the feds for requiring that a commercial fisherman bring a federal law enforcer on board his fishing boat at his own expense?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 11:12:32 AMHow is my contention different from the Supremes putting the kibosh on the feds for requiring that a commercial fisherman bring a federal law enforcer on board his fishing boat at his own expense?
It's sillier.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 11:02:13 AMAnd your problem with that is (raw class envy?) ??
I think tax policies should be established to both fund the government, but also to further societal goals. Taxing estates advances such goals. I have laid that out as my premise...and your response is "class envy?" GMAFB.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2024, 02:35:11 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 11:02:13 AMAnd your problem with that is (raw class envy?) ??
I think tax policies should be established to both fund the government, but also to further societal goals. Taxing estates advances such goals. I have laid that out as my premise...and your response is "class envy?" GMAFB.
Who is the arbiter of "societal goals?" I'm sure my goals for society are different than yours, or most anyone else's.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2024, 12:53:12 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2024, 02:35:11 PMQuote from: mgk920 on November 14, 2024, 11:02:13 AMAnd your problem with that is (raw class envy?) ??
I think tax policies should be established to both fund the government, but also to further societal goals. Taxing estates advances such goals. I have laid that out as my premise...and your response is "class envy?" GMAFB.
Who is the arbiter of "societal goals?" I'm sure my goals for society are different than yours, or most anyone else's.
Whatever the elected leaders determine them to be. As I said above...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 14, 2024, 10:49:02 AMWe give tax deductions for mortgage interest to encourage home ownership. Ditto for parents raising children. We tax dividends less than earned income to encourage business owners to reinvest in their business and create jobs. There are countless examples of this.
Yep. One of my House rep's goals is to reduce housing costs. He thinks housing costs are high due to corporate landlords buying up all the houses in Las Vegas. So to him a societal goal would be reducing the number of homes owned by corporate landlords, and he uses his position as House rep to advocate for that goal.
He probably isn't going to get anywhere for the next two years because the majority of people in Congress in the next term likely won't agree with him on that being a goal. Sort of a shame, since I do agree with him on this, but I can only vote for my own House rep, not anyone else's.
This is sort of the entire reason for having a democratic republic, that we can influence what goals the society is working toward by installing representatives that share our goals for society. If we had a monarchy, the king would be the arbiter of societal goals, full stop. If you don't agree with the king's societal goals, nobody cares.
For whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
Quote from: Rothman on November 21, 2024, 07:48:05 PMFor whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
It would sure help if investors weren't paying cash for every single home that goes on the market.
Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2024, 08:48:10 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 21, 2024, 07:48:05 PMFor whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
It would sure help if investors weren't paying cash for every single home that goes on the market.
This economist has a great series of TikToks that explore in-depth what is going on with housing prices. The percentage of investors owning single-family homes has been exaggerated:
https://www.tiktok.com/@econchrisclarke/video/7111016093354822958
You'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 09:34:34 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
I don't believe I read "Everything on TikTok is wrong" in Scott's post.
Gave you more credit than to pull this strawman stuff. :)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 22, 2024, 10:18:14 AMQuote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 09:34:34 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
I don't believe I read "Everything on TikTok is wrong" in Scott's post.
Gave you more credit than to pull this strawman stuff. :)
Is it fair enough to say some sources should be taken with a grain of salt, others with a salt lick?
Quote from: formulanone on November 22, 2024, 11:31:00 AMQuote from: JayhawkCO on November 22, 2024, 10:18:14 AMQuote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 09:34:34 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
I don't believe I read "Everything on TikTok is wrong" in Scott's post.
Gave you more credit than to pull this strawman stuff. :)
Is it fair enough to say some sources should be taken with a grain of salt, others with a salt lick?
Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut.
Quote from: Rothman on November 21, 2024, 07:48:05 PMFor whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
Seems to me that the best way to get rid of homes that are never going to sell would be for the seller to lower the price to a point where the house will sell.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 22, 2024, 01:59:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 21, 2024, 07:48:05 PMFor whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
Seems to me that the best way to get rid of homes that are never going to sell would be for the seller to lower the price to a point where the house will sell.
It's more complicated than that. There are a whole lot of dilapidated old homes out there where you can drop the price to a small amount and they still won't sell. Sometimes, some local historic preservation regulations come into play. Whatever the constraints, we allow old, crappy houses just to stick around.
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 09:34:34 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
If he's publishing his content directly on TikTok, that means he doesn't have another party, such as an editor, reviewing the content for correctness. This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published content to be used as a source (we have lightened that policy up on AARoads Wiki, but our policy still gives greater weight to a source with an editor than it does a self-published website).
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 02:34:12 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 22, 2024, 01:59:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 21, 2024, 07:48:05 PMFor whatever it's worth, the aggregate data shows that it's not corporate ownership of real estate that is causing higher prices, but a general lack of supply altogether. Need to build more homes and make it easier to get rid of homes that are never going to sell and replace with ones that will.
Seems to me that the best way to get rid of homes that are never going to sell would be for the seller to lower the price to a point where the house will sell.
It's more complicated than that. There are a whole lot of dilapidated old homes out there where you can drop the price to a small amount and they still won't sell. Sometimes, some local historic preservation regulations come into play. Whatever the constraints, we allow old, crappy houses just to stick around.
Right. It's because any buyer assumes a bunch of costs when purchasing a home. Getting a dilapidated home for free still means insurance (even if its just liability), taxes, utilities, etc.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 04:24:47 PMQuote from: Rothman on November 22, 2024, 09:34:34 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 22, 2024, 02:10:06 AMYou'll forgive me if I don't consider TikTok a reliable source when it comes to economics...
TikTok in of itself isn't a source. The economist, who has been used as an expert on nationwide news networks, definitely is.
It's one thing to say that his track record is crap, or his data is crap or his analysis is crap. To just say, "Everything on TikTok is wrong" is absurd.
Gave you more credit to not pull this broad ad hominem stuff...
If he's publishing his content directly on TikTok, that means he doesn't have another party, such as an editor, reviewing the content for correctness. This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published content to be used as a source (we have lightened that policy up on AARoads Wiki, but our policy still gives greater weight to a source with an editor than it does a self-published website).
Sure, but dismissing it out of hand based on the idea that it hasn't been edited (despite the fact that one may be overrating the quality of editing out there) is also inappropriate. Let me know when there's a problem with his actual content.
(i.e., if he had been an anti-vaxxer, then sure, I'd argue that such a position would go against the entire state of the art and point to the consensus amongst research institutions that vaccines are beneficial).