I like the ring of that. I hope nobody steals our words….. ; -)

And I should have left the needle in the pin cushion and stuck to our honest disagreements.

BTW, I wouldn’t die for every word I write on this site. Some is heartfelt, some is said for effect, some is just opinion. Some is just venting.

You and I agree on the important things.

Notice how Holder is mumbling about an assault weapons ban? I bought a couple new guns over the weekend and the shop owner said the thug messiah was the best thing to happen to gun sales since Clinton! Looks like the ammo backlog is coming to close—I got my stuff in less than a week…

1st: I do love to play golf (when the lower-back allows) and I do like Red Robin hamburgers. Suggestion(s)?

Gipper: agreed.

SG: sorry for being petulant on your fine website…

BTW, you do not live very far from me and a friend. Do you play golf and like Red Robin hamburgers?

And I suspect that you ARE a damned good economist.

I appreciate the nuance that ‘rich people’ have the ability to sit out the soft market rather being forced to sell. However, the very idea that they’re ‘sitting out’, i.e., not forced to sell, is proof that the houses (or mansions) are currently worth less than they were recently. QED.

I half agree with your assessment about the future: it will be hard for the middle and upper classes, including garden-variety millionaires. The uber-rich will survive (although Ferrari North America sales were off 50% from last year – an anecdotal aside). However, where I respectfully disagree with you, is that the so-called poor will flourish with ever increasing tax credits, stimulus payments, vouchers, ad infinitum.

p.s. I am in no way helping to run the country. I think I know what you meant, but I am not a member of the power elite, by any stretch of the imagination. Even though I am a damned good economist. ;-)

Want to guess what the % would be at $5M, $7.5M, $10M. It’s entirely speculative, since my survey isn’t complete, but I’ve got a wild hunch that foreclosure rates go down as the prices go up

And the super-rich I’m talking about would never pay for a mortgage anyway. Why should they pay 5 to 7% to somebody else when they can cash in a few bonds at 3 to 5% and buy the property for cash.

The Fortune 400, btw, have average fortunes of 1.3 billion, according to the magazine. They aren’t scrambling to make a mortgage payment.

“this blog is in no way intended to offend the colonel, who is a damned good economist and has many business interests – proreason”

I don’t envy you. I thank you. You and others help run this country. I’m glad we live lived in a country where you could become as successful as you are. I’m not being sarcastic, either.

I have problems with the liberal elites who don’t pay taxes. Look at Obama’s cabinet: a bunch of TAX CHEATS! Those who extole the virtue of social programs yet who skirt the funding (taxes) for them.

I really think the future will be harder financially on the middle class, upper middle class, and the “poor” millionaires (those who have to continue to work to maintain their status). The poor and the uber-rich will probably see no change.

I’m sure mansion prices have fallen, but not like the rest of real estate. Take a look at this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/20.....fi-homes20

Sure, it’s from the LA Times, but I think it has some truth to it. This is a key paragraph:

“Expensive markets often resist declines for several reasons. Sellers in high-priced areas often have a large amount of equity in their homes or own them outright. That makes them more able to sit on their houses and ride out a market downturn than people desperate to unload a house with a mortgage they can’t handle.”

Goggle removed the WSJ link to the Kerry’s taxes the day after I first posted on this topic.

Here is a reference to it:

http://forum.fearbush.com/inde.....linearplus

The source was a story by the respected Wall Street Journal, based on the Kerry’s tax returns which the WSG said were published by the Kerry’s.

Do you have any evidence that contradicts it?

I won’t go into the reasons again why real estate owned by the rich is hardly affected by the economic crisis. It doesn’t matter anyway, since they don’t have to sell, unlike many middle class people who have no choice. And of course, I won’t be able to prove it until I finish that survey of billiionaires I’m conducting by phone right now.

I do have a job. Indeed, I have several – thanks for asking. I’ll be happy to e-mail my resume to you, if you’re interested, but it would only provide an insight into one element of my life (my primary profession), not my other business interests, investments, etc. And no, I’m not worth anywhere near $200.0M (the ‘official’ proreason demarcation – thanks, PR!) – and I have no need nor desire to attain that level of wealth. Quite happy where I am…

But back to your original premise, you simply can’t prove that these evil rich people’s real estate assets haven’t lost a dime. And you have no clue what Ms. Kerry pays in taxes. It’s merely speculation on your part and instead of proving your claims, or, God forbid, admitting your wrong, you’ve proceeded with another churlish rant filled with ad hominem and non sequitur. How about ‘proemotion’, instead?

Gipper. I’m confident you aren’t include FICA/Mediaire. That will add 15.3%, since your employer matches what you pay.

You are actually paying 25% in taxes on your income.

Allow me some speculation. Please take no offense. 10% in fed taxes says you make about $50K p.a. Someone in your tax bracket who has saved for years might have about $50K in home equity, and $50K in an IRA. (to please the colonel, yes, these ranges can vary widely. We would have to call in economists to pin all of that down for absolute sure. We all know how accurate that profession is.). If I’m close, you are payinging about $12,500 (10% federal + 15.3% FICA, both on income) in taxes on your estate + earnings……… which is a very low 8.33%

Heres’s what Theresa Kerry paid in 2003 (the year she would have been MOST LIKELY to show a lot of taxes). 6/100th of 1%.

Since the colonel always wants the proof, here it is. According to WSJ reports at that time, she reported 5,000,000 income on a Fortune-magazine estinated $1 billion fortune. She paid $627,000 taxes in total (no FICA). 627,000 / 1,005,000,000 = 6/100th of 1%

So Gipper, YOU, who pays extremely low taxes paid 133 TIMES AS MUCH AS THERESA KERRY on a percentage basis ( .08333 / .000598 = 133 ).

Now this doesn’t take into consideration that:
- she probably pays a lot less on a percentage basis for RE taxes (her lawyers have seen to that)
- you pay sales tax on most of your income, since you need to live. She pays a very low %
- if you somehow manage to die with a small estate, the government will take a lot of it. They won’t take a penny from her. Her lawyers will see to that.
- if you through the sweat of your brow manage to work your way into a higher tax bracket, your % will go up. you could easily go from the 15% bracket to the 28% bracket, which will more than double the % you pay today. Since Madame Kerry is already in the highest bracket she can be in, her % of total paid will only creep up.

Do you still think YOU aren’t paying your fair share, gipper?