Have Democrats Become the Party of the Rich?
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/democrats-rich-party-obama/
Have Democrats Become the Party of the Rich?
If you’re waiting for Democrats to talk as frankly about wealth as they do about race, don’t hold your breath.
By David Bromwich
August 20, 2021
Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress. The above numbers incidentally come from the Internal Revenue Service, via Bloomberg, and are likely to be more reliable than if they came from Project Veritas via the Blaze.
Los Angeles voters approved a new tax on the sale of mansions worth more than $5 million. In the last month before the tax took effect, 126 of these mansions were sold. In the first month after the tax took effect, only 2 were sold.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/l-mansion-tax-ground-city-013834328.html
How L.A.’s Mansion Tax Ground the City’s Luxury Real Estate Market to a Halt
By Victoria K. Hunt
May 8, 2023
Rising interest rates have put a chill on real estate sales across the country, but an added factor has put the freeze on the Los Angeles luxury housing market.
Last fall L.A. voters approved a measure known as the “mansion tax” (formally referred to as United for Housing L.A. or ULA) to “fund affordable housing projects and provide resources to tenants at risk of homelessness,” according to the Los Angeles Office of Finance. Ever since it went into effect luxury home sales have stalled out in the city.
Starting on April 1, the measure instituted a 5.5 percent charge on commercial and residential sales above $10 million and 4 percent on properties over $5 million. Homeowners raced to sell properties before the policy began—slashing prices and luring potential owners with bonuses and even exotic cars to move the houses before March was done, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Once April 1 hit, many luxury properties were yanked off the market and the ones still on the market have skyrocketed in price to account for the transfer tax. In March, 126 homes priced above $5 million sold, but since then that number of has plummeted. The two, in Brentwood and Venice, sold for $5.7 million and $7.5 million, which raised over half of a million dollars for the homelessness prevention program.
Many luxury homeowners are holding on to their properties as the wait out two lawsuits against the city that hope to get ULA thrown out. Other sellers are trying to find loopholes in the measure, including selling a single property as smaller, cheaper properties. While some are taking the broker’s fee out of the sale price so it falls below the threshold.
While this tax originally projected $900 million a year in revenue a year for the city, based on 2021 and 2022 sales data, those estimates have been revised down to $672 million. But for now, Mayor Karen Bass is hedging her bets, putting forward a city budget that only projects $150 million from the program.
Check out this hypocrisy from Yahoo News! March 19, 2023: “A Landlord Got a Low Appraisal. He Is Black, and So Are His Tenants.” Yahoo News March 20, 2023: “‘We don’t deserve to be priced out’: Law aims to end gentrification in Black neighborhoods”
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
March 20, 2023
On March 19, 2023, Yahoo News published this article, which is called, “A Landlord Got a Low Appraisal. He Is Black, and So Are His Tenants.”
Source: https://news.yahoo.com/landlord-got-low-appraisal-black-143506573.html
Then on the very next day, March 20, 2023, Yahoo News published this other article, which called, “‘We don’t deserve to be priced out’: Law aims to end gentrification in Black neighborhoods”
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-deserve-priced-law-aims-090417689.html
So, at the same time, racism is causing the price of housing in black neighborhoods to be both too low, and too high.
The people who see racism everywhere will never be happy with the price of housing in black neighborhoods.
If the price is too low, that’s racism.
But if the price is too high, that’s racism too.
For the people who see racism everywhere, there is no price for housing that is not racist.
No matter what the price is, it is always racist.
This is what happens when you see racism everywhere.
Now I’m going to give my own opinion about the price of housing.
If you’re the buyer, then low prices are a good thing. But if you’re the seller, then low prices are a bad thing.
Likewise, if you’re the seller, then high prices are a good thing. But if you’re the buyer, then high prices are a bad thing.
And the best thing about this is that it applies to all races.
Buyers of every race want the price to be low.
And sellers of every race want the price to be high.
See how that works out? It’s got nothing to do with race. Instead, it’s all about whether a person is the buyer or the seller.
The great thing about my way of seeing this is that it is consistent for every person, every race, every house, every neighborhood, and every price. No matter what the combination of race and price is, my way of viewing this is 100% consistent.
I asked ChatGPT: Why do people wear Che Guevara t-shirts?
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
February 26, 2023
I recently had the following conversation with ChatGPT:
Me: Why do people wear Che Guevara t-shirts?
ChatGPT: People wear Che Guevara t-shirts for various reasons. Some wear them as a symbol of rebellion or as a way to express their political views. Che Guevara was an important figure in the Cuban Revolution and is viewed as a hero by many left-wing and anti-capitalist activists. The image of Guevara, often depicted wearing a beret and with a determined expression, has become a symbol of revolution and resistance for some people. However, it is worth noting that Che Guevara’s legacy is a controversial one, with some critics pointing to his violent methods and authoritarian tendencies.
Me: A hero? He personally executed many people without a trial. He was a serial killer.
ChatGPT: Che Guevara is a controversial figure and opinions about him vary widely. Some people view him as a revolutionary hero who fought for social justice and against imperialism, while others see him as a brutal oppressor who committed atrocities in the name of ideology.
It is true that Guevara played a role in executing individuals without trial during his time as a revolutionary in Cuba. These executions were part of a wider campaign to consolidate power and suppress opposition, and are often cited as evidence of Guevara’s brutal tactics.
Despite this, many people continue to wear Che Guevara t-shirts and other merchandise as a symbol of resistance against oppression and imperialism. To these individuals, Guevara represents a spirit of defiance and rebellion against unjust systems of power.
Me: What does killing innocent people have to do with “social justice”?
ChatGPT: Killing innocent people does not have anything to do with “social justice.” “Social justice” refers to the fair distribution of resources and opportunities in society, and the recognition and protection of the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background or social status. Engaging in acts of violence or terrorism, regardless of one’s ideology or beliefs, can never be justified as a means of achieving social justice. It is important to work towards social justice through peaceful and constructive means, such as advocacy, education, and community engagement.
Me: It was you, not me, who used that phrase. I was just quoting what you had already said.
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. To clarify, my previous statement was in reference to the importance of treating all individuals with inherent worth and dignity, regardless of their actions or behavior. It was not meant to justify or condone the actions of individuals who engage in violence or harm others.
Palestinian workers prefer to work for Israeli employers
https://www.jns.org/report-palestinian-workers-prefer-to-work-for-israeli-employers/
Palestinian workers prefer to work for Israeli employers
Higher salaries, legal protections and lack of discrimination are among the reasons most Palestinians would prefer to work for Israeli firms.
February 16, 2020
The United Nations “blacklist” of businesses operating in Israeli settlements was lauded by the Palestinian leadership following its publication last week, but a recent report indicates that Palestinians actually prefer to work for Israelis rather than Palestinians.
Titled “Why Palestinians prefer to work for Israeli employers,” the report, by Israel-based media watchdog group Palestinian Media Watch, affirms that whenever Palestinian workers have the opportunity to work for Israeli employers, they are quick to leave their jobs with Palestinian employers. The report cites an article in the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that praises the Israeli-employment sector.
According to senior PMW analyst Nan Jacques Zilberdik, who co-authored the report with PMW director Itamar Marcus, there are a number of reasons Palestinians prefer Israeli employers.
“First, the salary from Israeli employers is more than double that of the Palestinian sector, but that is not all. Palestinians working for Israelis are protected by the same laws as Israeli workers, including health benefits, sick leave, vacation time and other workers’ rights, whereas these protections are not granted by Palestinian employers. Also there is no gender or religious discrimination in the Israeli sector.”
Speaking on the official P.A. TV show “Workers Affairs,” Israeli-Arab labor lawyer Khaled Dukhi of the Israeli NGO Workers’ Hotline said Israeli labor law is “very good” because it does not differentiate between men and women, Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims and Jews. However, he explained, “Palestinian workers who work for Israelis still suffer because Palestinian middlemen ‘steal’ 50 percent, 60 percent and even 70 percent of their salaries, especially those of women.”
The higher Israeli salaries have been consistent for years, according to surveys published by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Labor Force Survey for the second quarter of 2018 showed that the average daily wage for wage employees in the West Bank was NIS 107.9 ($31.5) compared with NIS 62.6 (18.3) in Gaza Strip. The average daily wage for the wage employees in Israel and the Israeli settlements reached NIS 247.9 ($72.3) in the second quarter of 2018, compared with NIS 242.5 ($70.8) in the first quarter of 2018.
The US Middle Class Is Disappearing… into the Upper Middle Class
The US Middle Class Is Disappearing… into the Upper Middle Class
June 21, 2016
Yes, the America middle class is disappearing. At least as defined by the above WSJ chart. 38% of US families were middle class in 1979 vs. 32% in 2014.
But where did that 7% (6.8 percentage points to be exact) go? Well, of the five income groups (poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and rich) displayed, the bottom three got smaller, the top two bigger.
The poor shrank by 4.5 percentage points, the lower middle class by 6.8, the middle class also by 6.8% But the upper middle class got a lot bigger, expanding by 16.4 points, and the rich by 1.8 points. Oh, and here is how upper middle class is defined, using research from economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute:
Using Census Bureau data available through 2014, [Rose] defines the upper middle class as any household earning $100,000 to $350,000 for a family of three: at least double the U.S. median household income and about five times the poverty level. At the same time, they are quite distinct from the richest households. Instead of inheritors of dynastic wealth or the chief executives of large companies, they are likely middle-managers or professionals in business, law or medicine with bachelors and especially advanced degrees.
Smaller households can earn somewhat less to be classified as upper middle-class; larger households need to earn somewhat more.
Mr. Rose adjusts these thresholds for inflation back to 1979 and finds the population earning this much money has never been so large. One could quibble with his exact thresholds or with the adjustment that he uses for inflation. But using different measures of inflation, or using higher income thresholds for the upper-middle class, produces the same result: substantial growth among this group since the 1970s.
California governor Gavin Newsom is shocked to find out that illegal aliens are applying for the benefits that he offered to them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-PS_pr-t0
Newsom: California is overwhelmed by immigrant crisis
In an interview with ABC News, Governor Newsom said the federal government is sending buses and planes of immigrants to California.
By Morgan Rynor
December 12, 2022
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In an interview at the U.S.- Mexico border with ABC News, Governor Gavin Newsom said the federal government should be doing more to address the migrant crisis.
“The federal government is sending more and more flights, and more and more buses directly here to California because this state is doing what no other state’s doing,” Newsom told ABC’s Matt Guttman, “and that’s absorbing and protecting and preserving our values and advancing them by doing health care screenings, and taking care of folks, and the more we do, the burden is placed disproportionate on us.”
Newsom said the state is overwhelmed.
“We’re already at capacity and nine of our sites,” said Newsom. “We can’t continue to fund all of these sites because of the budgetary pressures now being placed on this state and the offsetting issues that I have to address.”
He said with Title 42 being lifted in one week, the state will not be able to handle the influx.
“The reality is, unless we’re doing what we’re doing, people will end up on the streets,” said Newsom.
Newsom said this is an issue that needs to be addressed by Republicans and Democrats, but not like how Florida Governor Ron
DeSantis is doing it by sending immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard.
“I mean, that’s just comedy and tragedy,” said Newsom.
He said the system is about to break in California.
“The fact is, what we’ve got right now is not working, and it’s about to break in a post-42 world unless we take some responsibility and ownership,” said Newsom. “I’m saying that as a Democrat. I’m not saying that to point fingers. I’m saying that as a father, I’m saying that as someone that feels responsible for being part of the solution, and I’m trying to do my best here.”
The California Press Corp, in charge of covering the governor, was not invited to this border tour. Political Analyst Steve Swatt said that was not accidental.
“He (Newsom) would like nothing better than to be the firebrand on the left for Democrats who is willing to take on governors DeSantis and Abbott on the immigration issue,” said Swatt, “because it’s so important to California in a different way than perhaps it’s important to those states.”
Newsom said he would be willing to work with Governor DeSantis and Abbot if they are willing “to put aside their cruelty and their zest for demonization.”
Kingston, New York, orders landlords to reduce rent by 15%
The city of Kingston, New York, is ordering landlords to reduce their rent by 15%.
Pretty much every economist, even the ones on the left, agree that, in the long run, rent control reduces both the quantity and the quality of rental housing.
Rent control is great for people who already have a rent controlled apartment.
But it’s horrible for people who are looking for an apartment.
The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that “rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing.”
That being said, as a person who does not live in Kingston, I think this is a great experiment to see what the results will be. Will the results here be the same as in other cities that had rent control? Or will they be different? Contrary to popular belief, it was not actually Einstein who first said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Sources:
https://reason.com/2022/11/16/landlords-sue-over-city-mandated-15-percent-rent-cut/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States
https://www.businessinsider.com/misattributed-quotes-2013-10
Joy Reid on MSNBC: “The only people I ever hear use the word ‘inflation’ are journalists and economists”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIxrFFe9Q2I
I wish that Democrats would answer my question: Why are Democrats funding student debt forgiveness with money from innocent taxpayers, instead of with money from the fraudulent colleges that sold worthless degrees?
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
September 5, 2022
I’m against student debt forgiveness.
But since it is happening, I have one question:
Why are Democrats funding student debt forgiveness with money from innocent taxpayers, instead of with money from the fraudulent colleges that sold worthless degrees?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1980 and 2020, regular inflation has caused average prices to increase by 228%.
However, during that same time period, college tuition has increased by 1,184%.
The student debt bailout is paying for hot tubs, spas, rock climbing walls, steaks, and movie theaters.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/caranewlon/2014/07/31/the-college-amenities-arms-race/
Another area where colleges waste money is in the worthless policy known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
The Federalist wrote:
“Some universities had strikingly large numbers of people with DEI responsibilities in their job titles. At the University of Michigan, for example, 163 people have formal responsibility for providing DEI programming and services. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has more than 13 times as many people devoted to promoting DEI as providing services to people with disabilities. Georgia Tech has 3.2 times as many DEI staff as it does history professors. The University of Virginia boasts 6.5 DEI staff for every 100 professors.”
The Center Square wrote:
“UC Berkeley employs 150 professionals and 250 additional students dedicated to addressing “systemic inequities,” according to a document obtained this week by The College Fix. The public research institution’s Division of Equity and Inclusion spends $25 million annually to support the 400 full and part-time staff to run diversity and inclusion-related programs, according to the document, an eight-page job description for a new Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion.”
So the real problem isn’t a lack of bailout money.
The real problem is that colleges are spending money on frivolous luxuries that have nothing to do with education, such as hot tubs, spas, rock climbing walls, steaks, and movie theaters, as well as on left wing brainwashing known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” with its overbloated budgets to pay huge numbers of employees who job duties have nothing to do with education.
Bailing out student loans doesn’t address these huge wastes of money.
On the contrary.
The bailout only gives colleges an incentive to raise their tuition even more.
I wish that Democrats would answer my question: Why are Democrats funding student debt forgiveness with money from innocent taxpayers, instead of with money from the fraudulent colleges that sold worthless degrees?
An alternative to debt forgiveness: This writer says eating peanut butter and jelly for lunch instead of going to a restaurant made them feel happy and in control of their life.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m-18k-debt-went-no-143039541.html
I’m $18k in debt, so I went on a no-spend month. Here’s what I learned.
By Chegg Life
August 31, 2022
Standing in my kitchen on a recent morning, making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch later that day, it occurred to me that what would appear to be a fairly mundane (albeit delicious) task was actually so much more.
Maybe that’s because, during the previous month, I spent close to $700 on restaurants alone. That’s like a million peanut butter and jellies.
It was that revelation that inspired a month-long no-restaurants-or-shopping challenge I assigned to myself in July. I could not continue to ignore my mounting bills, and I could not go on living with the constant reminder and anxiety of my $18,000 of credit card debt.
Since getting laid off in March 2021, I’ve been funding my life on a freelance salary in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I was living beyond my means, swiftly approaching my credit limit, and I felt completely out of control. Something had to change. And fast.
I was lucky to have a supportive (and much more knowledgeable friend) in my corner. We (she) quickly went on the offensive and introduced me to Tiller, a budgeting software she uses. She showed me how to calculate my expenses for the past three months and make a budget for the long term. Fun, I thought, but begrudgingly obliged. It was like watching a scary movie. But much like seeing Scream 5 in theaters after years of convincing myself I would be too scared, confronting my spending head-on made me realize that, like the Scream franchise, this isn’t that scary at all.
Looking at my expenses, I made the difficult-to-me decision to cut restaurants and shopping out completely for a full month. No shopping for non-necessities. No takeout. No dinners out with friends. No “Let’s grab a drink!” Could I actually do it? It was an off-putting prospect for a person who has been known to refresh Resy in hopes of scoring a last-minute, hard-to-get reservation for sport. But it felt worth trying.
Along with my shopping and food restrictions and newfound budgeting habit, I knew I needed to take action to feel like I was getting things a bit more in control; it was abundantly clear during this deep dive into my credit card statements that I was not in control at all. So, I began to make a few painful decisions, canceling a laundry list of plans that I simply could not afford: a dinner plan that very evening, a trip to Seattle later in the month to celebrate a friend’s wedding. I even called a beloved bathing suit brand to cancel an order I’d placed just days earlier. As I mentally crossed out things I’d been eagerly anticipating, I returned to a saying someone shared with me that I’ve found applicable in so many situations:
Just because something feels bad doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I expected some change as a result — like, perhaps, a little extra literal change in my account at the end of the month. And that certainly happened. But there were so many other unexpected lessons, too.
I felt so much gratitude
When I first took shopping and restaurants out of the equation, I worried about how I’d fare without the dopamine hit that comes only from clicking “buy now” or the excitement of that initial sip of an overpriced cocktail — would I feel like I was missing out?
That notion was tested a few times during the month. I went to a concert at a baseball stadium (tickets purchased pre-challenge) mid month, where, under normal circumstances, I would have typically bought, at the very least, chicken fingers and french fries and merch and, at the most, all of the above plus a $20 beer in a souvenir cup.
But I packed a sandwich and some wine in a thermos and tried to put fried food out of my mind. In line with a friend who wanted to get a drink, I felt the temptation creeping in. I’m not sure if it was the concert or the spending gods, but as we approached the front of the line, a very generous (and intoxicated) man turned around, announced he’d be buying drinks for everyone in the line and pulled out his credit card.
With the exception of the gifted tequila, I was mostly surprised to find myself not feeling deprived. I actually more grateful for not only the things I already have but for the people in my life that make it so special and sweet. Every time I shared my challenge with someone and they suggested going for a walk or having a picnic, it felt like my heart swelled three sizes.
I got more creative
That same friend who first sat me down in front of the computer to face my spending demons also helped me realize something that never occurred to me in all my life living in New York where your social life revolves around paying other people to cook for you. Meeting for dinner is so…easy.
Removing it as an option would mean getting more creative, finding more fun. I went on walks, on picnics, to the beach and to see free movies in the park that we always talk about seeing in the summer but never do. I snuck grocery store snacks into the movies. I went to Philadelphia to visit friends who planned an entire weekend of free or affordable activities — a pizza night and a bike ride. Another friend decided to host a potluck for her birthday dinner instead of going out. I found myself looking forward to finding new activities to do that didn’t involve spending money, and looking even more forward to checking my bank account and keeping tabs on my budget each day.
Who is she? I could barely recognize myself.
I tried my hand at new cuisines
Aside from the ubiquitous PB&J, I found myself trying out new recipes, like this miso-glazed salmon and a kale Caesar salad I cannot stop making. And, as an unexpected bonus, I feel… really good. It may not be sustainable to make myself every meal for the rest of forever, but having a basic idea of everything I was consuming for a month really made me feel like I was taking care of myself.
I connected with so many people
When I reached out to friends I’d made plans to spend the weekend with prior to starting this challenge, I was plagued with anxiety about how they would react. I wrote to them explaining what was going on and assured them that they were still welcome to go out to eat, that I would meet up with them when they were done. But they were more than happy to stay in and cook. Trying new restaurants is always exciting, but when it comes down to it, we make plans with people to connect and spend quality time together. And you don’t need to spend money to do that.
I started posting daily video diaries on my TikTok, mostly as a way of holding myself accountable and to keep a record of the experience. But soon, it grew into a community. I heard from so many different people who were either at some point in their debt payoff journey or looking for some inspo. I was happy to share both.
And I realized that, when given the chance, everyone has a debt story they’re eager to share.
I was initially scared to share publicly the actual amount of credit card debt I had. I was afraid of my mom seeing it, my family members on Facebook judging me. I was afraid of being made fun of, ridiculed for not knowing how to handle my money. What happened was quite the opposite.
I was on a walk with my friend (the one who helped me with the budget) one morning, agonizing over my finances when I just sort of…blurted it out, I told her I had $18,000 in debt — saying that number aloud for the first time. I waited for the shock, the disapproval. Bless her, it never came.
Once it was out there, my DMs almost immediately filled up with other people going through a similar situation, some offering tips on how to crawl out of it, some sharing personal anecdotes and even some comforting solidarity. It was not only refreshing; it was eye-opening, too. It made me realize that talking about finances openly and without judgment is something many of us are craving, and not necessarily getting.
I’m not sure what comes next. But as this month comes to an end, I have spent over $2,000 less than the month prior. I paid $1,000 off my credit card balance, put money away for taxes, and felt no anxiety about what my balance was while handing my debit card over to pay for some essentials. I didn’t get sick of peanut butter and jelly, and I have yet to miss a restaurant.
Mostly, I’m excited about the prospect of finally being in control of my finances — and my life — for what feels like the first time.
Student debt bailout pays for hot tubs, spas, rock climbing walls, steaks, and movie theaters
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
August 26, 2022
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1980 and 2020, regular inflation has caused average prices to increase by 228%. However, during that same time period, college tuition has increased by 1,184%.
Source for image:
And what are colleges doing with all this extra money?
Forbes wrote:
The College Amenities Arms Race
A free movie theater. A 25 person hot tub and spa with a lazy river and whirlpool. A leisure pool with biometric hand scanners for secure entry. A 50 foot climbing wall to make exercise interesting. And a top-of-the-line steak restaurant with free five course meals.
This isn’t a list of items from a resort brochure. They’re facilities you can find on a college campus. And with college construction costs rising, it could be the best four-year getaway you’ve ever had.
In “Country Club as College,” a paper published last year, University of Michigan researchers examined college financial consumption against enrollment.
“We found that the lower ability students and higher income students have a greater willingness to pay for these amenities,” says Brian Jacob, a researcher from the University of Michigan. “The more academic, high achieving students cared about intellectual achievement.”
In other words? Harvard University might not spend approximately $700 million to renovate their campus, but High Point University would. Under the leadership of President Nido Qubein, High Point’s campus has grown into a collegiate theme park, complete with plasma televisions in dorm rooms, a free movie theater, and steak restaurant. And their five-star, country club accommodations have made the percent admitted decline from 86.1% in 2002 to 64.2% in 2012.
The University of Iowa has an estimated $53 million campus recreation center, complete with an 18 foot diving well, bubble benches, and lazy river. Texas Tech University has a veritable water park in their backyard. California State University, Fullerton has a 30 foot rock wall. And California State University, Long Beach has a $70 million wellness center with hand scanners for secure entry.
So the real problem isn’t a lack of bailout money. The real problem is that colleges are spending money on frivolous luxuries that have nothing to do with education.
Bailing out student loans doesn’t address this problem.
On the contrary. The bailout only gives colleges an incentive to raise their tuition even more.
Los Angeles high school principal Richelle Brooks says she shouldn’t have to pay back her $230,000 in student debt. Schools should teach their students about personal responsibility. Principal Brooks is teaching her students the exact opposite.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
August 25, 2022
This essay was written by a Los Angeles high school principal named Richelle Brooks. She thinks that she should not have to pay back her $230,000 in student debt. She is setting a bad role model for her students. Schools should teach personal responsibility. Principal Brooks is teaching her students the exact opposite.
Here are some of the rules of personal responsibility that Principal Brooks is teaching her students to break:
1) Keep your promises. If you borrow money and sign a contract where you promise to pay it back, keep your promise.
2) Don’t borrow money if you can’t afford to pay it back.
3) Live within your means.
4) Take responsibility for your actions.
Here is the essay by Principal Brooks:
https://therealnews.com/opinion-i-am-not-asking-for-debt-forgiveness-i-am-demanding-justice
Opinion | I am not asking for ‘debt forgiveness.’ I am demanding justice
President Biden has the power to cancel all student loan debt with a stroke of his pen, a move that will ensure Black women like me have, for perhaps the first time, a real shot at prosperity
By Dr. Richelle Brooks
March 31, 2022
When I graduated from college, I knew my purpose was to serve this country’s most vulnerable. For the last eight years, I have served as an educator and high school principal in Los Angeles, California, and in 2021 I founded ReTHINK It, a nonprofit that addresses the material needs of marginalized communities. I have dedicated myself to empowering and educating young people and advocating for folks victimized by systemic and systematic oppression.
But I drastically underestimated the cost of this work—both personal and financial.
At present, I owe $230,000 dollars in student loan debt. Like countless borrowers, I owe more than I did when I first graduated college. I am but one example of the stark racial disparity governing the student debt-loan crisis: After 12 years of payments, the typical white male in the US has paid off 44% of his student loan balance, while the typical balance for Black women borrowers grows by 13%.
On April 4, debtors and our allies from around the country will head to the doorsteps of the Department of Education in Washington, DC, to demonstrate our collective strength and send a clear message that Joe Biden must do more than simply extend the payment moratorium. He has the power to cancel all student loan debt with a stroke of his pen, a move that will ensure Black women have, for perhaps the first time, a real shot at prosperity.
For years, I believed my student loan debt was the result of my personal failings—a lie that countless borrowers, particularly those who are Black or from poor and working-class families, come to internalize. Then, in September of 2020, I joined the Debt Collective, an organization fighting for the abolition of all forms of debt through the creation of a debtor’s union. Soon, I became one of the Biden Jubilee 100; we declared ourselves on strike from ever repaying our student loan balance, and demanded the full cancellation of student loan debt within President Biden’s first 100 days in office.
Joining the Debt Collective allowed me to finally politicize my experience. More importantly, it showed me that I was not alone: All student loan debt is the result of the systemic failures in this country. And the policy decisions and economic arrangements that created this system, which has buried generations under mountains of un-repayable student loan debt, comprise a catastrophic societal failure that can and must be rectified.
Growing up, I was told that achieving the American Dream would require going to college so I could secure a career. Home ownership, one of the most important ways that families build intergenerational wealth, is comically beyond reach. In my hometown of Carson, California, the median home price has increased over the past year by 19.7% to over $700,000.
Racist banking practices have also made the prospect of home ownership increasingly infeasible for Black borrowers. Wells Fargo has faced renewed public scrutiny in recent weeks, following a bombshell Bloomberg report that found the bank had denied home loans to 53% of its Black applicants in 2020, at the height of the pandemic-induced crisis and the ensuing economic hardship. The highest-earning Black families, or those earning over $168,000 a year, were approved for home loans at a rate nearly identical to the lowest-earning white families, or those earning less than $63,000 a year. The blatant discrimation was infuriating, yet hardly surprising.
For my generation, the American Dream feels like just that, a dream—it is never going to become reality. With my student loan debt, owning a house of my own is a hopeless fantasy.
The same goes for most millennials. According to one recent survey, student loan debt has kept some 35% of millennial borrowers from buying a home—nearly double the amount of baby boomers. It is especially hopeless for those of us from poor and working-class communities. Student loan debt decimates our credit-worthiness, barring many from ever owning a home.
For millions of us, wage discrimination makes the dream even more illusory. Although Black women make up a substantial share of the workforce, they earn just 63% of what white men are paid. Overall, women across nearly all races and ethnicities experience higher rates of poverty than men, a disparity due largely to single motherhood and the gender pay gap. But Black women are disproportionately represented among all women living in poverty: In the US, they constitute 22.3% of women living in poverty, but only 12.8% of the population.
As women aim to “pull themselves” and their families out of poverty, low and stagnant wages fail to allow them to make a living. Debt piles up. Women graduate college owing, on average, about $22,000—for men, it’s $18,880. Black women graduate college owing nearly twice the debt of men, an average of $37,558. Thanks to astounding interest rates, these balances grow over time.
Without assertive action from the Biden administration, many families will be unable to free themselves from the shackles of debt. Between 1989 and 2019, the national household net worth for white families grew from $462,000 to a whopping $953,000; meanwhile, the national household net worth for Black families only moved slightly, from $82,000 to $141,000.
Evidence shows that the racial wealth gap is growing wider, decade after decade. Student loan debt will exacerbate this as the indebtedness of Black families continues to grow. While white families can and tend to pass on their wealth and net worth to succeeding generations, Black families pass on debt and use their resources to support family members who also lack wealth and net worth. On average and in the aggregate, wealth compounds with each generation for white families, while indebtedness compounds with each generation for Black families. We are fighting now for the survival of our children and their children.
As I came to be more involved with the Debt Collective, I watched Black women suffer under their growing loan balances, even as they continued to show up for their families, communities, and this nation. But I also realized that, together, we had power beyond anything I could have imagined.
Black women have been outspoken about the perverse systems barring us from any form of upward mobility. We are doing everything “right” to ensure our future generations aren’t forced into the same dire situations: going to college, graduating, pursuing well-paying careers, attempting to purchase homes and build savings and resources so we can pass them on to future generations. But we cannot dismantle entire systems without the help of those who most benefit from our marginalization.
Specifically, this means white men, the most privileged demographic in this country—they must use their power, wealth, and social capital, to repair the harm endured by people who are categorically oppressed by the very system that empowers them. The longer Joe Biden fails to act, the longer he perpetuates the violence of a white supremacist system that further traps us in debt.
By canceling student loan debt, Joe Biden could create jobs, stimulate the economy, and narrow the racial wealth gap. Doing so would keep trillions of dollars in the hands of people and communities. Families would have less debt and more money to spend, providing immediate and direct economic stimulus to those impacted most by the pandemic: Black families and other families of color. Debt cancellation would provide Black families, especially millennial-parent households, a chance at home ownership, immediately increasing the possibility of building up one’s net worth and having intergenerational wealth to pass on. It’s that simple.
As countless pundits have noted, Black women voters saved the country from a second Trump term, all without adequate recognition or compensation. Empty praise and calls to “thank Black women” are not enough. We need material redistribution and economic transformation. We are owed nothing less.
We have paid enough—and I say no more. I am not asking for “debt forgiveness.” I am demanding justice.
Shame on the New York Times! Instead of asking “Where are the fathers of these children?” the New York Times blames childhood poverty on lack of government funding. Also, shame on the New York Times for saying “they had little choice.”
Here is a recent article from the New York Times about a bunch of unmarried women and their out-of-wedlock babies.
The word “father” does not appear in the article.
Instead, the New York Times uses the following words and phrases to explain why these women and children are living in poverty:
“have few options”
“waiting for subsidized housing”
“18 people had been inside the four-bedroom public housing unit, triple the number of people who had moved in a decade earlier”
“mothers, sons and daughters”
“they had little choice”
“a growing family forced to crowd ever more tightly into the apartment it already had”
“According to a 2016 assessment of housing needs in the city, Philadelphia is supplying less than 12 percent of the publicly supported housing needed for its low-income households”
“Without enough funding to support a program like that”
“Shakia Miller, who lives in a three-bedroom unit at the West Park Apartments, which are owned and managed by the housing authority, applied for a bigger place when she was pregnant with twin boys. They are now 9 years old, yet the family, which includes Ms. Miller’s three older children, is still living in the same apartment.”
“There were six people on the lease at that time, a number that expanded, by the time of the latest lease, to 14. There were three sisters, Rosalee, Virginia and Quinsha, and a growing number of children”
“There should have been a lot more resources for the family”
“For the families that are in such a situation, there may not be much of a choice at all.”
So that’s what’s in the article.
According to the New York Times, these women had no control over anything, and the reason that these women and their children are living in poverty is because the government is not spending enough money.
The New York Times never asks where the children’s fathers are.
The New York Times never asks why these women had so many out-of-wedlock babies that they could not afford to take care of.
Shame on the New York Times for not asking, “Where are the fathers of these children?”
Shame on the New York Times for blaming their poverty on lack of government funding!
Shame on the New York Times for falsely claiming these these women had no choice and no control over their situation!
I’d like to propose a new policy. Instead of the government spending more money on unmarried women and their out-of-wedlock babies, the government should stop funding them entirely.
Unmarried women who have babies out of wedlock should not be rewarded with public housing and section 8 vouchers.
Whatever you reward, you get more of.
We should stop rewarding unmarried women who have babies out of wedlock.
An unmarried women who has a baby out of wedlock should never be eligible for public housing or section 8 vouchers.
Before the Democrats started their “Great Society” and their “war on poverty” in the 1960s, only 5% of babies in the U.S. were born out of wedlock.
Today, it’s 40%.
This chart shows the increase. The chart is from this link at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nonmarital_Birth_Rates_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png
And now I’d like to talk about the origination of the fire that killed those mothers and their children.
First, someone removed the batteries from the home’s smoke detectors.
And second, a very careless and negligent cigarette smoker left their lighter in a place where a five-year-old boy was able to get it and then use it to set the family’s Christmas tree on fire. I don’t blame the five-year-old boy. I do blame the adult smoker.
This incident happened in Philadelphia. And while I don’t know the statistics for Philadelphia, I do know that in New York state, low-income smokers spend 25% of their income on cigarettes.
Choices matter.
Choices result in actions.
Actions result in consequences.
Having babies out of wedlock that you can’t afford is a choice, no matter how many times the New York Times writes that “they had little choice.”
Taking the batteries out of smoke detectors is also a choice that can lead to disastrous results.
Leaving a lighter where a five-year-old can get it is irresponsible and negligent.
Smoking is stupid.
Spending 25% of your income on cigarettes when your own children don’t even have adequate housing is inexcusable.
Childhood poverty would be greatly reduced if people behaved responsibly. Let’s consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.
The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:
1) Finish high school.
2) Get a full-time job.
3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.
The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.
Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.
Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.
My source for that information is this article, which refers to this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Finally, I’m going to end this blog post by posting a video of the song “Love Child” by the Supremes from the 1960s. By today’s standards, this song would be considered extremely conservative, as well as racist and sexist. It’s a great song, with a lesson that needs to be taught more often:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdmGO-GvHyo
Billionaire Leon Cooperman asked Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exactly what it is that he has done wrong. They refused to answer him.
The Washington Post recently published this article on billionaire Leon Cooperman.
The article states:
He… wrote letters to politicians such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) whenever they criticized billionaires in their speeches, because he couldn’t understand: What exactly had he done wrong? What rule had he broken? He’d been born to poor immigrant parents on the losing end of a capitalist economy. He’d attended public schools, taken on debt to become the first in his family to attend college, worked 80-hour weeks, made smart decisions, benefited from some good luck, amassed a fortune for himself and for his clients and paid hundreds of millions in taxes to the government. He had a wife of 57 years, two successful children, and three grandchildren who were helping him decide how to give most of his money away to a long list of charities. “My life is the story of the American Dream,” he’d said while accepting an award at one charity gala, and he’d always imagined himself as the rags-to-riches hero, only to now find himself cast as the greedy villain in a story of economic inequality run amok.
Warren, Sanders, and Ocasio-Cortez have all refused to answer Cooperman’s question.
In California, the leftists who see “racism” everywhere are now claiming that their own rooftop solar program creates “racist” “inequities.” Their contradictory “solution” is to create a new tax on the very same solar power that they are subsidizing.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
January 30, 2022
For more than 20 years, California has been giving homeowners financial incentives to install rooftop solar panels on their homes. The goal here is to encourage the use of solar power.
Because whatever you subsidize you get more of, the program has more than achieved its goal of one million solar rooftop installations.
That should be a cause for celebration.
Except that we’re talking about leftists here. And leftists always find something to complain about.
In this particular case, they are claiming that their own very successful program, which they have been supporting for more than two decades, has created “racism” and “inequities.”
And their proposed “solution” to this “racism” and “inequity” is to create a new tax on the very rooftop solar installations that they have been subsidizing for more than two decades.
Just as subsidies lead to an increase in whatever is being subsidized, taxes lead to a reduction in whatever is being taxed.
So instead of celebrating the success of their own solar rooftop program, the left is now trying to discourage the very same thing that it had been encouraging for more than 20 years.
Cuban Goes to Home Depot for FIRST TIME – DREAM CAME TRUE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLsscvpsH8E
Student debt forgiveness should be funded by fraudulent colleges that sold worthless degrees, instead of by innocent taxpayers
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
January 17, 2022
Democrats think that innocent taxpayers should be forced to pay off student debt.
I think this is a horrible idea.
I’m a Libertarian, which means that I am against punishing innocent taxpayers.
It also means that I, unlike Democrats, understand the horrible incentives that would be created if innocent taxpayers were forced to pay off student debt. Such a policy would encourage colleges to raise their tuitions even more than they already have, and would also encourage future students to borrow even more money than what had been borrowed by past students. This would make the problem of student debt worse, not better.
By comparison, my proposal would not do these harmful things. On the contrary, my proposal would cause colleges to think very hard before they encourage their students and potential students to borrow money. It would also encourage colleges to reconsider their current policy of offering worthless majors that cause their graduates to end up working at Starbucks.
What an idiot: “I have $131K in student loans and can’t afford my life, despite making $110K a year…. I didn’t care what the cost was – I didn’t even look at what I was signing”
‘It doesn’t seem fair’: I have $131K in student loans and can’t afford my life, despite making $110K a year. How to get out of student-loan debt faster
By Brienne Walsh
December 29, 2021
Question: I’m now 39, and in a better place in my life than I was roughly 10 years ago, when I decided to take out over $100,000 in student loans to attend a food policy and nutrition master’s program. The program was the only master’s program I got into, and I didn’t care what the cost was — I didn’t even look at what I was signing.
Now, in total, between my undergrad and grad loans, I owe $131,000. Some of the loans are federal and some of them private; one of those companies charges an interest rate of 6%. Though most of my loans are on pause now (thanks to the federal government), I’m worried about what will happen when that stops. The loan payments are too expensive, even though I’m now a nutrition and public health consultant who works on a contractual basis, and I make a good salary — $110,000 a year.
But our mortgage costs $1,100 a month; daycare is about the same, and car payments are $400. Otherwise, I feel we live very frugally: We even bathe our son in a Tupperware tub because our bathroom needs to be renovated, but we don’t have the money for it! We can’t even afford, as it is, to contribute to retirement or pay for some much-needed dental work. I honestly don’t know what we are going to do when my loans become unfrozen. How can I get out of debt faster? — Erin
Answer: First up, you’re not alone in feeling overwhelmed by student loan debt, and you’re doing some things right, like “limiting the mortgage and the car loan,” which are both “well within your range for your income level,” says Mitchell C. Hockenbury, a certified financial planner at 1440 Financial Partners in Kansas City. But, Hockenbury says, with your low mortgage and other seemingly reasonable expenses, you should see if there is more money to put towards debt payments. Even if there’s not, once the daycare stops, you will have that money to more aggressively pay down debts.
The next question is whether to refinance loans to save money. But first, consider that right now your federal loan payments are on pause through May 2022, and that you should be careful about refinancing a federal loan into a private loan as you will lose some of the federal loan protections, such as income-based repayment and forgiveness options. (You can get details on how much a refinance could save you here). But Ethan Miller, the founder of Washington, D.C.-based financial planning firm Planning for Progress, says Erin should likely refinance some of her private loans, as rates are pretty low right now (see the lowest fixed student loan refinance rates you can qualify for here). “If you feel confident in your income, and you know you’ll have a job for many years, this is the best option,” says Miller.
There are other options as well, says Hockenbury: “Is there a possibility to take a cash-out refi? Interest rates are low, housing prices have soared. Perhaps she could use the cash to pay down some debt,” he says. Though, of course, she needs to be sure she can repay that or she risks losing her house.
Though for some borrowers, student loan forgiveness may be an option, it does not sound like Erin would qualify for a loan forgiveness program like the Public Student Loan Forgiveness Program, as she’s a contractor at a government agency, not a full-time employee, explains Miller. (See details on loan forgiveness, cancellation and discharge here to see if you might qualify.) But if she looks at her budget, she may find extra money to pay down her debt faster; refinancing at least some of her loans at today’s low rates could make the payments more manageable, and a cash-out refi on her home may be another option. Best of luck, Erin!
Democrats are preparing to roll back a Trump-era tax measure – and it could restore tax breaks for some of America’s wealthiest residents [a $500 billion tax cut – with $400 billion flowing to the top 5% of households]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-preparing-roll-back-trump-202742046.html
Democrats are preparing to reverse a Trump-era tax move – and it could cut taxes for America’s wealthiest residents
By Juliana Kaplan
November 2, 2021
Democrats are ready to repeal a Trump-era policy that cut tax breaks for residents of wealthy states.
Democrats have previously argued that capping the deduction for local taxes impacts wealthier blue states more.
However, one budget expert calls it a “gigantic expensive tax cut for the rich.”
Democrats are about to include a tax break in their $1.75 trillion social spending plan that will overwhelmingly benefit higher-earning Americans.
On Tuesday, Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey wrote on Twitter that the provision had been added into the plan. A Democratic aide familiar with negotiations told Insider that Democrats were eyeing a five-year tax break that runs through 2025, a development first reported by Punchbowl News.
The break would also be retroactive to this year.
The SALT deduction allows taxpayers to deduct their state and local tax totals from their federal obligation. Under Trump’s 2017 tax plan, the previously unlimited deduction was capped at $10,000. That primarily impacts taxpayers in areas with high local taxes, which tend to be in wealthier blue states like New Jersey.
Trump’s tax plan especially hit people with properties in multiple states, who were able to deduct their state property-tax totals in, for instance, New York City, if they had a property there as well as a nearby state like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Connecticut.
Revenge of the SALT Caucus
A repeal does have bipartisan support: 32 legislators from both sides of the aisle formed a “SALT Caucus” in April. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that the Trump cap was “mean-spirited” and “politically targeted” by taking aim at wealthy residents of blue states. It also had support from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
Marc Goldwein, a budget expert at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, projects that the five-year SALT deduction would amount to a $500 billion tax cut – with $400 billion flowing to the top 5% of households.
“It’s a very good question about priorities when they’re willing to put two and a half times as much into tax cuts for the rich as they are into child tax credit and the EITC expansion that mainly go to the poor and middle class,” Goldwein said.
Jason Furman, a former top economist to President Barack Obama, wrote on Twitter that he guesses most Americans with a net worth of $50 to $300 million would actually get a tax cut.
“The bill would do more for the super-rich than it does for climate change, childcare or preschool,” Furman wrote. “That’s obscene.”
Some Democrats defended the effort to repeal the cap. “This is about punishing blue state voters,” Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, told Insider.
When asked about the SALT deduction as a tax for the wealthy, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey told Insider, “You clearly have not come to New Jersey.”
“I live in a low income neighborhood,” Booker added. “People are paying more than $10,000 in taxes. So what are you talking about?”
“This is a middle-class issue and it’s something that’s really a concern for people,” he told Insider.
Not all Democrats are onboard with a repeal. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont came out against it, saying it would effectively provide a tax cut to the very rich.
“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the last thing we should be doing is giving more tax breaks to the very rich,” he wrote on Twitter. “Democrats campaigned and won on an agenda that demands that the very wealthy finally pay their fair share, not one that gives them more tax breaks.”
Sanders added he was open to a compromise approach on the issue, but “won’t support more tax breaks for billionaires.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said that she thinks “it’s just a giveaway to the rich,” breaking from some of her fellow New York representatives. She wrote on Twitter that Congress shouldn’t endorse a “100% repeal.”
Democrats are using the party-line reconciliation process to approve the plan over united Republican opposition. Its afforded them very little room to maneuver given they can only spare three votes in the House and zero in the Senate to mold President Joe Biden’s economic plans into law.
America’s big cities are turning into housing catastrophes. If we want to fix this mess, we should try and copy Tokyo.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-big-cities-turning-housing-120600526.html
America’s big cities are turning into housing catastrophes. If we want to fix this mess, we should try and copy Tokyo.
By Jairaj Devadiga
October 9, 2021
A view of residential houses in Tokyo, Japan.
In major cities around the world, housing is becoming less and less affordable.
Tokyo, Japan, is a notable exception, with prices barely rising since 1995.
The US has restrictive, often absurd regulations, and should instead mirror Tokyo.
Jairaj Devadiga is an economist specializing in public policy and economic history.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
In major cities around the world, housing prices have spiraled out of control.
In California’s Bay Area, the median house price is $1.3 million. In Vancouver, the average household must save for 34 years to make a down payment on a house, and put aside 85% of its pre-tax income for mortgage payments. In Sydney, a decrepit house without any toilet facilities sells for $3.5 million.
In this sea of craziness, Tokyo has been an island of sanity. Its housing prices have barely risen since 1995. This is not due to deflation either.
While the population of Japan as a whole has been shrinking, Tokyo has been growing. Between 1995 and 2019, the population of Tokyo grew by 2.17 million, or just above 90,000 per year on average. To accommodate all these new people, lots of housing had to be built. Over the same time period, there was an average of 153,000 housing starts annually.
A study by the Fraser Institute illustrates what happens when housing supply fails to keep up with demand. Between 2015 and 2019, 120,000 new jobs were created in Vancouver and Toronto. In the same time period, there were only 57,000 housing starts every year. Since demand was growing more than twice as fast as supply, prices skyrocketed. The same story played out in almost every major city. Lots of new jobs being created, lots of people wanting to move, and not enough homes being built for all of them.
There are numerous bad policies which prevent the construction of more housing. Chief among them are restrictive zoning laws. In most cities with expensive housing, vast swathes of residential land are reserved exclusively for single family homes. Until very recently, the worst of the bunch was San Jose, with 94% of the land being off limits for apartment buildings. No wonder it is the least affordable city in America.
Not only does this make housing costlier for middle and low income folks, but also subsidizes mansions for the rich. The land on which a mansion sits would be worth a lot more if an apartment building could be built on it. The developer would make a profit even if they sold each apartment at an affordable price.
However, because that’s not allowed, developers won’t bid for that land, thus driving down its price.
While Tokyo does have low density zones, these do not prohibit multi-family buildings. Thus it is not uncommon to see a three story apartment building right next to a single family home.
Apart from zoning, cities dictate minimum lot sizes and maximum floor area ratios (how much of the plot is covered by the building itself), which further stifle construction. In much of Mumbai, for instance, the floor area ratio was capped at 1.33 until 2018.
This had the disastrous result of pushing poor people into slums, as they could not compete with affluent families for the limited housing. In 1971, 22% of Mumbai’s population lived in slums. By 2010, this had risen to 62%. By contrast, Tokyo allows floor area ratios as high as 13, and even higher with government permission.
Another problem is cities wanting to preserve too many historical sites. For instance, cities often declare old homes or commercial establishments to be historical monuments, which prevents them from being torn down and replaced with apartment buildings.
In some cases, cities prevent development even when the historical monument itself would be untouched. For instance, last year, a historic preservation board in Seattle rejected a proposal for a 200-unit apartment building because it would be taller than nearby historical monuments. While Tokyo has historic buildings, its criteria for preservation are much stricter and thus don’t get in the way of affordable housing.
Another important factor in raising housing prices is over-regulation. A recent report by the National Association of Home Builders estimates that regulations add almost $94,000 to the price of new homes. The vast majority of these regulations are purely aesthetic, such as mandating certain types of landscaping and architectural styles, or banning vinyl sidings.
This is not exclusive to American cities. A study on India’s Ahmedabad shows that unnecessary regulations add 34% to the cost of housing. By contrast, Tokyo has very few common sense regulations; mainly to protect against the frequent earthquakes. As long as developers follow these and the very liberal zoning laws, they are free to build as they please.
At this point, you might wonder why these restrictive rules persist if they are so obviously bad. Why is liberal city-planning the exception, rather than the norm? To answer this, we must examine the policy making process itself, to understand the motivations of all participants.
Consider San Jose, with its 94% single-family zoning. The politicians in San Jose were catering to the wishes of their constituents; the people already living in San Jose. Those voters wanted high prices. To them, their house is an investment, which would lose value if more housing were built in their neighborhood. It would also result in new neighbors bringing in a different culture from what the residents are used to.
People who wanted to move to San Jose, but couldn’t due to high prices, would benefit from more liberal planning. They might live in different parts of California, or even in other states. Obviously they don’t get to vote in San Jose elections, thus local politicians have no incentive to help them.
The same process plays out across every city, resulting in sky-high prices.
At the state or national level, though, the political calculus changes completely. People in a particular city might want to restrict housing development, but everyone else wants more. Thus state and national politicians have an incentive to liberalize.
This is exactly what happened in Japan. It too had local governments choking the housing market, resulting in a massive housing bubble in the 1980s. This prompted the national government to enact a series of reforms to rein in housing prices.
The national government formulates building codes, zoning laws, and other city-planning regulations for the entire country, giving very little leeway to local governments.
Recently, governor Gavin Newsom did something similar in California, by finally abolishing single-family zoning statewide, and also loosening some other restrictions.
To win elections, local politicians must necessarily keep down the supply of new housing. It is up to state and national governments to deny them that power, and quickly. Otherwise, home-ownership will remain a pipe-dream for most people.
Democrats wage war against family farmers and small business owners
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-6019bbf1969016cbd2749b213ba47a08
As tax changes loom, farmers worry about the next generation
By Tim Grant
SHARPSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Michael Kovach got into the farming business 13 years ago with the purchase of a 107-acre farm in Mercer County after retiring from the oil and gas industry at 39.
“I’ve worked too hard on this piece of ground to really even consider the thought of it turning into anything other than what it is and getting better than what it is,” said Mr. Kovach, 52, owner of Walnut Hill Farm in Sharpsville.
He has two full-time employees who help him raise grass-fed livestock such as Angus cattle, lambs and chickens, which are sold direct to consumers at the farm. His wife, Karen, runs the farm stand.
Mr. Kovach bought the farm hoping to one day pass the mantle of ownership to his daughter, who is 17. Now he and and other family farmers across the state worry how changes in the tax law could impact their plans to transfer their farms from one generation to the next.
President Joe Biden has proposed tax changes in order to pay for the American Families Plan, which provides government benefits and tax breaks for middle- and lower-income people.
The proposal that’s garnered the highest profile in the business community has been Mr. Biden’s plan to raise the 21% corporate tax rate that has been in place since 2018. He’s proposed changing it to 28%, which is targeted at the largest corporations, some of which effectively pay no income tax on billions in revenue.
Small-business owners are most concerned about increased taxes on capital gains — profits on the sale of assets — and on inherited wealth. Mr. Biden’s plan calls for nearly doubling the top tax rate on capital gains and eliminating a significant tax benefit on appreciated assets known as the “step-up in basis.” The combined tax rate increase could add up to 61% on inherited wealth.
For example, if someone dies after starting a business decades ago that’s now worth $100 million, under the current tax law, the business would pass to family members with no capital gains tax because the cost basis of the business is stepped-up to its current value at death.
Under Mr. Biden’s plan, the heirs would immediately owe a capital gains tax of $42.96 million based on the capital gains rate of 39.6%, plus the net investment income tax of 3.8%, minus the $1 million estate tax exemption. The proposal would reduce the estate tax exemption from $11.7 million to $1 million.
If the estate tax remains unchanged, the family would also pay an estate tax of 40% on $57.04 million of the remaining assets. Including exemptions, the estate tax would amount to $18.13 million.
The combined federal estate tax and capital gains tax liability would total $61.1 million on the heirs’ original $100 million inheritance. That’s without including state capital gains and estate taxes.
“That’s a really important thing if I’m the daughter of a business owner and I want to inherit stock in my family’s company,” said Elizabeth “Li” Connolly, a partner at the Connolly Steel accounting firm in Avalon. “Me, as a regular person, could be theoretically not targeted by this, but it’s going to affect everyone in a negative way.”
Dividend payouts and stock buybacks
The tax proposal most closely tied to the larger economic recovery is the corporate tax hike that could go from 21% to as much as 28%, although negotiations are ongoing, and media sources have reported Mr. Biden floating the idea of a minimum corporate tax of 15%.
Prior to the corporate rate being reduced in 2018 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, corporations paid a tax rate as high as 35%.
Pennsylvania State Treasurer Stacy Garrity said she has met with small-business leaders across the state who are interested in expanding their companies but are holding back due to the uncertainty of tax changes.
Pennsylvania has 1.1 million small businesses, which Ms. Garrity said make up 99.6% of all businesses in the state.
She said owners of farms in rural Pennsylvania are particularly worried about a capital gains tax hike.
More than 8% of U.S. adults have at least $1 million in assets, according to the Global Wealth Report 2020 by Credit Suisse. That comes out to slightly more than 20 million Americans.
The Pennsylvania Farmers Union has 300 members, all of whom are owners of family farms. The national farmers organization has 200,000 members.
“Some of these farmers have had these farms in their families for generations, and now, if they go to pass on the farm to the next generation, anything over $1 million they would have to pay that capital gains tax on it,” Ms. Garrity said.
Farm operator households usually have more wealth than the average U.S. household because they own significant capital assets, such as farmland and equipment necessary to run a farm. In 2019, the average farm household had $1,042,855 in wealth, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Gus Faucher, chief economist at Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group, said the bank is waiting to have a better sense of what’s likely to get through Congress before incorporating the tax increases into its forecast.
But on the surface, he said, it’s not likely to have a significant impact on economic growth.
“We saw very little change in growth when the corporate income tax cuts were passed under the Trump administration in 2017,” Mr. Faucher said. “There was a modest growth pickup in business fixed investment following passage of the tax cuts, but that faded in 2019.
“Mostly the impact of the corporate income tax cut was to increase dividend payouts to shareholders and boost stock prices, with little impact on the real economy. Therefore, I would expect a very small negative economic impact from the proposed Biden tax cuts.”
‘Tax is a price’
A tax increase of a few percentage points can be absorbed by most profitable companies.
“If they know what the tax rate is, over a period of months they will adjust to it,” said Robert Fragasso, chairman and CEO of Fragasso Financial Advisors, Downtown. “They will adjust just like we do in our homes and our personal finances. We adjust to changes in pricing. Tax is a price. It’s part of what corporations pay to do business.
“You could argue that corporations spend too much money on this or that or pay people too much at the top,” he said. “That’s just financial management. But taxes in and of themselves is neither good nor bad. It’s how they are applied to the business. I’m not advocating for higher taxes. But we do have to pay for what we’re spending.”
Mr. Fragasso, whose company manages nearly $2 billion for clients, said lawmakers could get a false impression of how much corporations are making without taking into consideration that profitability varies from year to year, and responsible company managers put money aside for unforeseen events that will impact their future.
“That’s what we do,” he said. “A legislator could look at us and say, ‘Tax them more because they are a rich company’ when in fact we set it aside for the future to hedge the unexpected or to use to grow the company and create more employment.”
Ms. Connolly noted that nothing is carved in stone yet.
“Over the years, I don’t get worked up about anything until I see it signed into law because there’s going to be a lot of changes,” she said.
“Everything right now is still speculation because there’s going to be a lot of negotiation as part of this.”
In California, the left is eating itself – excessive regulations are making it very difficult for the state’s legal sellers of recreational marijuana
This is hilarious. Instead of reducing the excessive regulations, the government is planning to spend $100 million to help business owners deal with the regulations.
In addition, seven different environmental organizations have complained about the effects of legal marijuana on the environment.
In California, the left is eating itself.
As a libertarian, I am in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana, and I am against excessive regulation of businesses. The fact that California wants to spend this $100 million, instead of reducing the excessive regulations, is hilarious.
Here’s the article:
California offers $100 million to rescue its struggling legal marijuana industry
By Patrick McGreevy
June 14, 2021
SACRAMENTO —
The California Legislature on Monday approved a $100-million plan to bolster California’s legal marijuana industry, which continues to struggle to compete with the large illicit pot market nearly five years after voters approved sales for recreational use.
Los Angeles will be the biggest beneficiary of the money, which was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to be provided as grants to cities and counties to help cannabis businesses transition from provisional to regular licenses.
“California voters approved Proposition 64 five years ago and entrusted the Legislature with creating a legal, well-regulated cannabis market,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee. “We have yet to reach that goal.”
Many cannabis growers, retailers and manufacturers have struggled to make the transition from a provisional, temporary license to a permanent one renewed on an annual basis — a process that requires a costly, complicated and time-consuming review of the negative environmental effects involved in a business and a plan for reducing those harms.
As a result, about 82% of the state’s cannabis licensees still held provisional licenses as of April, according to the governor’s office.
The funds, including $22 million earmarked for L.A., would help cities hire experts and staff to assist businesses in completing the environmental studies and transitioning the licenses to “help legitimate businesses succeed,” Ting said.
The grant program is endorsed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who said in a letter to legislators that the money is “essential in supporting a well-regulated, equitable, and sustainable cannabis market.”
Separately, the governor wants to give cannabis businesses a six-month extension beyond a Jan. 1 deadline to transition from provisional licenses by complying with mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act. That extension, which faces opposition for delaying promised environmental safeguards, was not included in the state budget bill approved Monday and is still being negotiated with lawmakers.
The governor’s proposal to extend provisional licenses has drawn objections from a coalition of seven environmental groups including Sierra Club California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy.
They said in a letter to Newsom that the proposal allowing the extension of provisional licenses and interim alternatives to CEQA rules goes against what voters were promised and is “wholly inadequate to protect local communities and the environment.”
At the same time, industry officials say the governor’s proposals do not go far enough in helping businesses struggling to stay open with provisional licenses while meeting what they see as burdensome rules under the state’s environmental regulations.
“It is a significant amount of money, but I don’t know that it actually answers the problem of provisional licenses making it through CEQA analysis in a timely manner to get an annual license,” said Jerred Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Assn.
He said delays in cities adopting rules, their limited staffing and lack of resources by cannabis firms mean some face two to four years to get through the licensing process. Many would face the prospect of shutting down, at least temporarily, if they don’t get a regular license by current state deadlines, Kiloh said.
California voters paved the way for state licensing of cannabis stores, farms, distributors and testing when they approved Proposition 64 in 2016. State officials initially expected to license as many as 6,000 cannabis shops in the first few years, but permits have been issued only for 1,086 retail and delivery firms.
In 2019, industry officials estimated there were nearly three times as many unlicensed businesses as ones with state permits. Although some industry leaders believe enforcement has reduced the number of illegal pot shops, a study in September by USC researchers estimated unlicensed retailers still outnumbered those that were licensed.
Supporters of legalization blame the discrepancy on problems that they say include high taxes on licensed businesses, burdensome regulations and the decision of about three-quarters of cities in California not to allow cannabis retailers in their jurisdictions.
The bill approved by the Legislature on Monday includes $100 million and identifies 17 cities and counties earmarked to receive grants, including Los Angeles, which would get the largest grant. Other cities that will get grants include Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Commerce, Adelanto and Desert Hot Springs.
Originally, pot businesses were supposed to transfer from temporary licenses to regular annual licenses by 2019, but many businesses were unable to comply in time, so the state allowed provisional licenses until Jan. 1, 2020, and then extended the deadline again to Jan. 1, 2022.
A key requirement to convert from a provisional license is to conduct a CEQA review to indicate how pot farms and other cannabis businesses will affect the surrounding water, air, plants and wildlife, and to propose ways to mitigate any harms.
However, Kiloh said, some cities are just setting up ordinances and staffing to process licenses, meaning many businesses cannot meet the looming deadline.
Each cannabis grower must provide evidence that they met the requirements for environmental review. If their city and county do not provide the required document, the applicants must prepare one, which often means hiring environmental consultants.
A bill by state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) would have allowed the state to extend provisional licenses six years until 2028, but she shelved it after it drew opposition from the coalition of environmental groups.
The groups sent a letter to lawmakers saying that the bill “does not provide adequate environmental protection.”
The governor’s proposal, which is being considered by lawmakers, would allow the extension of existing provisional licenses by six months.
Environmentalists still hope the budget trailer bill can be changed to address their concerns, according to Pamela Flick, California program director of Defenders of Wildlife.
The group “opposes the proposed trailer bill language because it needs stronger environmental protections consistent with the original commitments made in Proposition 64, in which the voters intended meaningful and timely compliance” with environmental laws, Flick said.
The Newsom administration is warning of dire consequences if pot businesses are not given more time to get a regular license.
“Absent this extension, it is possible that a significant number of these licensees could fall out of the legal cannabis system, significantly curtailing the state’s efforts to facilitate the transition to a legal and well-regulated market,” the administration warned in its budget proposal.
The $100 million would go to local agencies with the most provisional licenses for growing, manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail operations. Some of the money can be used by cities offering equity funding to cannabis businesses owned by people of color.
Lawmakers welcomed the budget proposal from Newsom, who has an interest in seeing the legal market succeed because he was a leading proponent of Proposition 64.
“Gov. Newsom is dedicated to the success of the legal cannabis industry in California,” said Nicole Elliott, the governor’s senior advisor on cannabis. “The purpose of this one-time $100 million in grant funding is to aid locals and provisional licensees, many of which are small businesses, legacy operators and equity applicants, in more expeditiously migrating to annual licensure.”
Garcetti said in his letter that it will help Los Angeles “in creating a robust CEQA compliance program and comprehensive assistance programs to aid licensees in meeting annual licensure requirements.”
However, industry officials note the money will go to a small fraction of California cities, and only those that have already decided to allow cannabis businesses.
“It’s not incentivizing localities who have cannabis bans to get their ordinances up and running,” said Kiloh, owner of the Higher Path cannabis store in Sherman Oaks.
“The real problem is CEQA analysis is a very arduous process,” he added. “I think it would be good to have more reform of the licensing system instead of just putting money to it.”
Socialist-Themed Vegan Food Company Lays Off Workers Without Notice Or Severance (This same left-wing company had previously tried to stop its employees from forming a union)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-evil-foods-layoffs_n_60c653fbe4b0402a2c033cf3
Socialist-Themed Vegan Food Company Lays Off Workers Without Notice Or Severance
Workers at No Evil Foods’ North Carolina plant were furious at the news, according to audio of the layoff announcement.
By Dave Jamieson
June 13, 2021
A self-described socially conscious vegan food manufacturer laid off its entire production staff in North Carolina on Friday, infuriating workers who said the lack of notice and severance pay was out of step with the company’s stated values.
Audio of the layoff announcement at No Evil Foods provided to HuffPost by a source captured stunned workers shouting back at company leaders who delivered the news.
“So we get fired so you can stay alive?” one worker said to the company’s chief executive, Mike Woliansky, as Woliansky explained that the facility will be shut down.
Several workers reacted with disbelief after the company’s human resources chief, Drew Pollick, explained they would be paid for Friday’s work but nothing beyond that because “we’re out of money.”
Workers were heard yelling “screw all of y’all” and ”F*** you!”
“You can’t tell me there’s absolutely no money,” one said.
“They got a better deal ― the ones that f***ed up,” added one worker, in apparent reference to the company’s leadership.
No Evil Foods, which is based in Weaverville, north of Asheville, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.
Woliansky said in the meeting that No Evil Foods was counting on a new infusion of cash that recently fell through. He said the pandemic presented a number of challenges for the company, and that leaders had decided to move to a co-manufacturing model, rather than have its own dedicated facility.
“The reality of the situation is the company has essentially run out of money, and we’re now really forced to make some really big, really difficult changes,” he said in the audio obtained by HuffPost. “It’s coming down to whether or not there will be a No Evil at all.”
Mike Rapier, one of the workers who spoke up during the meeting, said in an interview with HuffPost that the company’s leaders deserved all the backtalk. No Evil Foods describes itself as a purpose-driven food manufacturer, seeking to address “food insecurity, economic justice, and climate change” through plant-based options. Some of its products make cheeky nods to socialism, like the chicken-free Comrade Cluck.
Rapier said company leaders often spoke about the workforce as a family. That’s why Rapier, a production employee, expected more than a recommendation letter and a leaflet about an upcoming job fair.
“We would have big monthly meetings about core values and family and respect and save-the-world,” said Rapier, who added that he did not make the audio recording. “They preached all of this stuff, but then when it came down to it … they were very, very cutthroat.”
Companies generally are not required to provide severance pay unless a contract requires it. Sometimes employers are required to give 60 days notice or more under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or similar state laws, but the mass layoff at No Evil Foods appears to be small enough so that the law does not apply.
Rapier estimated that there were between 30 and 50 workers laid off on Friday, though he said others had been let go earlier in the year. The layoffs were first reported by Insider.
This is not the first time workers have accused No Evil Foods of not meeting its socially conscious image. The company pushed back hard against a union drive last year, holding captive-audience meetings and urging workers to vote down the effort with the United Food and Commercial Workers union. When audio of those meetings were posted to the internet, the company made legal efforts to have them removed.
The company fired two workers involved in the organizing effort, claiming they had violated the facility’s social-distancing rules. The two workers, Jon Reynolds and Cortne Roche, accused the company of illegal retaliation, and the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel pursued a complaint. As Jacobin recently reported, No Evil Foods settled those claims by paying $20,000 to Reynolds and $22,500 to Roche.
Rapier said he really enjoyed working at No Evil Foods. He eats meat and didn’t buy into the plant-based-foods mission of the company, but he considered it a solid job and liked his co-workers. He left Ace Hardware a year ago to work at No Evil Foods.
According to Rapier, the company had recently invested in equipment that did not suit its production well, leading to frequent shutdowns. He said he had a feeling business was not going well. Still, Rapier said, given the mission of No Evil Foods, he assumed the company would try to give workers a softer landing.
“They talked the talk but they didn’t walk the walk with regard to their philosophy. They just dumped us,” he said. “This kind of upheaval is not right, the way they went about this.”
Rapier, 59, said his health insurance through No Evil Foods ended immediately Friday, and he isn’t sure if he’ll be able to find coverage he can afford. As for his next work plans, Rapier said he plans to go to that job fair.
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 
