Use access key #2 to skip to page content.



April 18, 2008 – Comments (17)

Well worth a visit.

Thanks to Nate Parmelee for alerting me.

17 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM, abitare (30.20) wrote:

I posted this yesterday, with the petition link. But no one goes to my weak blog....

abitare mere pawn in game of life.  

Report this comment
#2) On April 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM, CycleFreak7 (< 20) wrote:

Abitare, I read your "weak" blog. ;-)

Report this comment
#3) On April 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM, devoish (78.16) wrote:


I signed the petition.

Report this comment
#4) On April 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

I will not sign this petition, not because I disagree with it, but because I don't want to make a fool of myself. This is a lost cause and it's not worth 0.1 second of my time.

Report this comment
#5) On April 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, FourthAxis (< 20) wrote:

I read your "weak" blog too!

Report this comment
#6) On April 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM, SemperGumby77 (71.93) wrote:

I'm not a renter, but I signed the petition anyway, and am not afraid to "make a fool out of myself"  for  something I believe in.

Report this comment
#7) On April 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM, madcowmonkey (< 20) wrote:

I didn't read the "weak" article and I will not sign this, but I do agree with some of the statements. 

One thing though. People that own a house most likely pay a state RE tax. I know I do, so that is where the tax break is coming from. If I just paid my mortgages and didn't pay taxes on my properties, then I would sign the petition.

Enough with the crying and whining and bailing and petitioning. Man up!

Report this comment
#8) On April 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM, TMFBent (99.34) wrote:

so that is where the tax break is coming from.

Not at all. Renter's pay property taxes already, just like home owners and home debtors. It's included in the rent they pay. Yet home debtors get an income tax credit from the government, not because it makes any real sense, but because it's popular.

It's an artificial support for housing demand over renting, just like all the politicians' recent efforts to re-inflate the prices of housing.

Renters should be angry. They should be REALLY angry. Not only are the dope weathervane politicians in Washington bending over backwards to reward a handful of people for their bad decisions, they're using loaded, bogus descriptions of impending "homelessness" of that same irresponsible few to justify giving corporate welfare to billionaires like Robert Toll.

It's sickening and wrong.


Report this comment
#9) On April 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM, GS751 (26.90) wrote:

Well Said Bent the part that sticks out to me is the part about 2% foreclosures and 32% renters. 

Report this comment
#10) On April 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM, madcowmonkey (< 20) wrote:

Bent- not so sure I follow your logic. When the renter wants to walk out of the house/apartment there isn't much on the line. A home debtor? walking away from a house and it will most likely kill the credit of the debtor. There is way more on the line for the debtore/home owner. Personally, renters are not paying the tax. They are paying for the right to live on the property. Many home rentees don't have renters in the building for much of the time. That past rent is not added to the new renter by any stretch, so there is no way anybody can say I rent and pay MY real estate tax. Therefore I should get the break. The thought process is close, but it just will not hold up. I rented for a few years and never really gave it much thought about the tax statement that you make. Maybe it would have been different then..........nahhhhhh my name was never on a line that stated I need to pay the tax for the property or I would lose it, as in $ that was in the property (dont forget about escrows). Best of luck Bent. Just because we disagree doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I do disagree with the government bailing people out and the stimulus bs too. time for people to step up and take a little responsibility when it comes to there lives. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM, FleaBagger (27.47) wrote:

Seth is right about mortgage tax breaks being bad policy, but he is wrong about renters paying more anything than "home debtors" except in the cases of foreclosure buyers. It's just that renters are being responsible and saving their money, and the gov't is bribing home debtors to be irresponsible and throw their money away on overpriced houses.

Ever wonder why poor people rent? It's because renting is cheaper! The reason home buyers are on average better off financially than renters is because, for one thing, that stat came out at the height of the housing bubble, and for another, home buyers have, on average, much higher-paying jobs!

However, madcow is right about everyone needing to man up. You renters will never have public policy go your way, or even be fair. 

Report this comment
#12) On April 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM, TMFBent (99.34) wrote:

 Ever wonder why poor people rent? It's because renting is cheaper!

Actually, historically the problem has been that "poor people" couldn't come up with the down payment and/or meet credit conditions traditionally required of home purchasers.

Until the past few years. The entire problem now is that "poor people" were buying, not renting, and these people could not afford their payments. They got into the houses only because lenders were willing to give them exotic loans with little or no money down, fictionalized income information, etc, and the only reason they were willing to do that was because they were selling these lousy loans to other bagholders down the line.

Renting is not always cheaper, it depends on where, when, and prices.

However, madcow is right about everyone needing to man up.

That's a pretty hilarious turnaround. Renters say, "Hey, you home buyers. Stop crying for bailouts and pay your own bills," and the response is "No, you stop crying about the way we're crying for free money! We deserve your money to bail out our bad loans, so you need to man up!"


Report this comment
#13) On April 28, 2008 at 2:58 PM, FleaBagger (27.47) wrote:

Seth -

No one is going to implement good policy. I'm not advocating bad policy, just saying everyone needs to learn to deal with it. Get mad at people like Buffett and Soros, who advocate bad policy just so they can profit from it. (Did you hear Soros come out in favor of bailouts in general?)

So basically my point is that you need to calm down. Your tax money is being wasted. You should be used to it by now. Your response just proves my point about you freaking out and accomplishing nothing (with the freak-out - I'm not saying you're not an accomplished person, but go ahead and take it that way, because the best laughs I've had on CAPS, 1StarHero notwithstanding, have come from people taking me wildly out of context, not unlike you portraying me as defending bailout hustlers).

I hope you're having a great day!

Report this comment
#14) On May 01, 2008 at 3:55 PM, madcowmonkey (< 20) wrote:

Bent- you just stated that the "renters" getting the mortgages are the ones that are foreclosing. So all you present renters/foreclosed homes and now renting are the ones you are complaining about. Somehow you just did a complete circle on this gig and now you really have the debate going towards the homeowners way. Homeowners are now paying for a house that isn't worth the amount they bought it for, because renters decided to jump into the ball game? Hmmmmm. Either way nobody wins. Even if the gov gives me a break on my homes, I am still paying for it regardless if the rent goes up or down for renters.

Forget the homeowners and keep complaining about the banks. They are the ones that are getting bailed out. The fed drops the rate and the banks keep the rates approximately the same. All they are doing is increasing margin so they can pay for all the mortgages that went bad on the "renters".  

Flea- Love the out of context bit. I need to copy and paste it for my own:)

good luck fellas 

Report this comment
#15) On May 03, 2008 at 5:28 PM, klemenv (97.11) wrote:

I beleive government should do more helping homeowners and less helping bankers and Wall Street.

Also don't understand, why taxpayers should get the bill? What about debt owners (I mean bond holders and shareholders of insurers and banks), that were receiving profits in the past?

Afterall, if debt holders would want risk free investment, they should buy treasuries in first place. With profit, there comes risk too.


Report this comment
#16) On May 06, 2008 at 1:52 PM, madcowmonkey (< 20) wrote:

When haven't the taxpayers not paid for a mistake by some government/fed blunder? That is what we are here for. We pay for others to do what they want with our money as long as we have cheap gas and decent food to purchase. Since when did we become complacent and start thinking that driving a big car or not be able to afford a home, and eat mediocre food become the american dream. True, other countries don't have these luxuries, but the light skinned man has definitely ruined a great thing. Before we came to the US to set up shop, the native americans had no taxes and the women did all the work:) Now we have taxes and the men work. What were we thinking?

Report this comment
#17) On May 19, 2008 at 4:28 PM, yachtspecialist (< 20) wrote:

The Wall Street Journal


Angry they may be, but the people behind are certainly not renters. Though it purports to be a spontaneous uprising, is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners