I seem to be obsessed with politics these days.
I for one have been a little perplexed at the debate over Voter ID laws for several reasons. For one, I would think that it would be a nonpartisan issue. Also, I have been perplexed that the reporting on these laws seems biased. You might object to that conclusion but every article I have seen about this issue seems to make some sort of claim that some group is trying to deny another group its right to vote. You may say that is exactly what is happening, but with the exact same set of facts, another valid conclusion is that one group opposes any reasonable measures to prevent voter fraud. And I have NOT seen that being written.
If you haven't already left in a huff, I propose the following thought experiment.
For the sake of argument, suppose I was a zealous supporter of one candidate or party and suppose that this zeal overcame my usual sense of decorum and led me to believe that victory was really more important than another person's right to vote. If I want more votes for my candidate, I could perhaps go to the graveyards and try to register deceased citizens and vote under their names. OR even more effectively, I could vote under the names of people I know support the other candidate! The second option allows a double benefit, so I choose that option.
I get up early and go to the voting place of a friend I know who supports the other party and cast his vote for my candidate. No one is allowed to ask me for a voter ID. I simply promise that is who I am.
Now, my friend later goes to the same poll and tries to sign in for his vote. He however, is turned away because, according to their records he has already voted. He has an ID and shows the poll workers the ID. Still they can't let him vote because he has already voted. He swears that is not him but how are they to know for sure? The vote is already cast and there is no guarantee that this person is simply trying to vote twice.
Here is my question - Would you argue that the state has an obligation to protect my friend's right to vote? .....
(pausing here for you to think on this a little)
If so, how would you propose the state accomplish this. If they are not allowed to check ID's, I don't think they can.
Another way to look at this is to say that it is more important to protect the rights to vote of those of one group than another. But if that is the case, who gets to decide which group should have more say?
I cannot support this idea. In my opinion, if one voter shows up with a valid ID identifying himself as who he claims to be and another shows up without an ID, the person with the ID should clearly get to be the one who votes. Also, if we are going to continue to be a democracy, I don't think we can start claiming that one person's vote is more important than another's.
I know it is not perfect, but I do think it is reasonable. It is not as though people don't know in advance and have plenty of time to get things in order before Election Day.
Just my opinion. Thanks for reading and I promise that I will do some more on real estate. Lately I've just had politics on my mind.
Have a great day.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
BTW - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me clarifying that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents or employees (other than me, of course). If you have another opinion, you are free to express it in the comments. You are not free however, to make inappropriate, obscene or hateful comments. Should I see any such comments, I will exercise my right to delete these.
ALSO - If you would like an opinion regarding real estate, I would love to help. I am a broker licensed in Indiana and Kentucky and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate. I work with sellers and buyers, landlords and tenants, and investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Retail and Investment properties. Heck, I can even set you up if you need help with residential real estate. In any case, give me a call or send me an e-mail. I would love to help.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Fair Taxes
Well I've been sitting on my hands and biting my tongue for about 3 months and finally I decided to weigh in.
We hear a lot from our President and in his campaign about instituting fairness in taxation. Some of my young friends have expressed nearly rabid opinions to me about how unfair things are. As I mentioned in a previous post, fairness is a difficult thing to define or measure. So instead of doing that, let's have a simple case study - me.
It is no secret that the last several years have been extraordinarily difficult for real estate. Homeowners, real estate brokers, builders, people in the construction industries have all suffered tremendously in this economy. I for one have been barely scraping by for the last 4 years. My job has no base salary. I am only paid if there is a lease or sale by commission only and there is no guaranteed minimum wage.
During that period of time, I never recieved any government assistance of any kind. And in fact, being considered self employed, I would not even be considered eligible for unemployment benefits unless I was unable to make any money at all for an extended period (which I beleive is one year.) To survive the economic calamity, I had to exhaust my savings and I had to borrow to the maximum amount possible against my home. Still I was luckier than many. I never had to declare bankruptcy and I never had to have my home in foreclosure.
Now, I am thankful to be having my first good year in four years. Still, I am a long way from recovering. I have much larger debts to pay off and I would need probably another 4 good years to be back where I was before all of this began.
With this good fortune also comes an increase in taxes. In a way, I am grateful that I am back to where I can even consider taxes a problem BUT my issue is that taxes should be reasonable. Although I am having a good year, I definitely cant be considered one of the wealthiest in the country. Say whatever you want, but I am telling you from my personal experience that our current tax structure kills growth.
Getting past the rhetoric and into some hard numbers to illustrate my point. Consider the following taxes, I have to pay:
Next there is 6% sales tax. There is tax on my energy bills. There is tax on my phone bills. There is tax on gasoline. There is tax on my insurance bills. There is tax for licensing my car. There is a tax for having a pet. There is a tax on healthcare. Now with Obamacare, there is tax for not only healthcare but also for health insurance.
The bottom line here is that it is EASY to get to 60% of your income going to taxes. In fact, it really isn't too hard to get to 70% when you consider all the ways that the government(s) tax(es) you.
How is it fair to have to send two thirds of your income to the government and only be allowed to keep one third for your family? How can we claim that we are promoting growth when someone has to make three times the amount that they lost just to break even?
I am not an anarchist. I beleive that the government serves an important purpose. So I am not advocating no government or no taxes. HOWEVER, there is something wrong when the government wants to cry foul and vilify people who are paying taxes. If the government is having to take 60 to 70% of a citizens income and STILL can't balance its budget, that government is spending too much.
I hear the news and the current administration attacking the Tea Party movement. I would not identify myself as a member of this movement but I have to come to their defense. For all of the President's talk about fairness, I would say that the very underlying principle of the Tea Party is really about fairness. There ought to be a reasonable limit on government spending and there ought to be a reasonable limit on the maximum amount of taxes (all taxes) that an individual should have to pay.
Stepping off my soapbox. Just my opinion.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
BTW - I also offer advice and opinions on Real Estate. In fact, I am a Commercial Real Estate Broker and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate. I handle Office, Industrial, Retail, Investment and Commercial Land properties. I help Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors in Sales and Leasing properties. I would love to help you as well.
ALSO - I am sure that my Managing Broker would appreciate me stressing that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its employees or brokers. I am happy to hear comments either pro or con and you may feel free to post them if you would like. I am not however happy to have hateful or inappropriate comments and I will exercise my right to delete those which I deem so.
We hear a lot from our President and in his campaign about instituting fairness in taxation. Some of my young friends have expressed nearly rabid opinions to me about how unfair things are. As I mentioned in a previous post, fairness is a difficult thing to define or measure. So instead of doing that, let's have a simple case study - me.
It is no secret that the last several years have been extraordinarily difficult for real estate. Homeowners, real estate brokers, builders, people in the construction industries have all suffered tremendously in this economy. I for one have been barely scraping by for the last 4 years. My job has no base salary. I am only paid if there is a lease or sale by commission only and there is no guaranteed minimum wage.
During that period of time, I never recieved any government assistance of any kind. And in fact, being considered self employed, I would not even be considered eligible for unemployment benefits unless I was unable to make any money at all for an extended period (which I beleive is one year.) To survive the economic calamity, I had to exhaust my savings and I had to borrow to the maximum amount possible against my home. Still I was luckier than many. I never had to declare bankruptcy and I never had to have my home in foreclosure.
Now, I am thankful to be having my first good year in four years. Still, I am a long way from recovering. I have much larger debts to pay off and I would need probably another 4 good years to be back where I was before all of this began.
With this good fortune also comes an increase in taxes. In a way, I am grateful that I am back to where I can even consider taxes a problem BUT my issue is that taxes should be reasonable. Although I am having a good year, I definitely cant be considered one of the wealthiest in the country. Say whatever you want, but I am telling you from my personal experience that our current tax structure kills growth.
Getting past the rhetoric and into some hard numbers to illustrate my point. Consider the following taxes, I have to pay:
- Federal Income Tax - rate approximately 28%
- Medicare, FICA, SSA taxes PLUS self employment tax - approximately 15.5%
- State Income Tax - rate approximately 6%
- Local Income Tax - rate approximately 2.2%
- State Sales Tax - 6%
- Property Tax - Approximately 1% of the assessed value (this is low because these taxes just increased)
Next there is 6% sales tax. There is tax on my energy bills. There is tax on my phone bills. There is tax on gasoline. There is tax on my insurance bills. There is tax for licensing my car. There is a tax for having a pet. There is a tax on healthcare. Now with Obamacare, there is tax for not only healthcare but also for health insurance.
The bottom line here is that it is EASY to get to 60% of your income going to taxes. In fact, it really isn't too hard to get to 70% when you consider all the ways that the government(s) tax(es) you.
How is it fair to have to send two thirds of your income to the government and only be allowed to keep one third for your family? How can we claim that we are promoting growth when someone has to make three times the amount that they lost just to break even?
I am not an anarchist. I beleive that the government serves an important purpose. So I am not advocating no government or no taxes. HOWEVER, there is something wrong when the government wants to cry foul and vilify people who are paying taxes. If the government is having to take 60 to 70% of a citizens income and STILL can't balance its budget, that government is spending too much.
I hear the news and the current administration attacking the Tea Party movement. I would not identify myself as a member of this movement but I have to come to their defense. For all of the President's talk about fairness, I would say that the very underlying principle of the Tea Party is really about fairness. There ought to be a reasonable limit on government spending and there ought to be a reasonable limit on the maximum amount of taxes (all taxes) that an individual should have to pay.
Stepping off my soapbox. Just my opinion.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
BTW - I also offer advice and opinions on Real Estate. In fact, I am a Commercial Real Estate Broker and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate. I handle Office, Industrial, Retail, Investment and Commercial Land properties. I help Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors in Sales and Leasing properties. I would love to help you as well.
ALSO - I am sure that my Managing Broker would appreciate me stressing that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its employees or brokers. I am happy to hear comments either pro or con and you may feel free to post them if you would like. I am not however happy to have hateful or inappropriate comments and I will exercise my right to delete those which I deem so.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
ObamaCare
A side road through a political mine field -
Today is a historic day because the Supreme Court released its opinion that ObamaCare is constitutional. Honestly I have mixed emotions about this. I am somewhat taken aback that the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to require us to purchase something. While you might argue that this was a necessity to get healthcare under control, the fact is that this precedent has now been set and one has to wonder what else the government can now require us to do.
I am already hearing outcries that since the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional, that it must be repealed. Perhaps so. As one friend opined, just because a law is constitutional, does not necessarily mean that it is a good law. But, suppose the law is repealed. What would it then be replaced with? Given the decision of the Supreme Court, it would seem to me that there is a more prudent way to proceed.
First of all, I think all of the arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law should now stop. We have a decision from our Supreme Court and accordingly, we should recognize its ruling and accept it. That is the way our government is designed. It is no more acceptable to show contempt for the US Supreme Court, than it is to show contempt for Congress or contempt for the Office of President. Like it or not, ObamaCare is constitutional.
Secondly, since it is constitutional, I think that we (all of us) should examine what is acceptable to us all and agree to accept it. Then let's work on the parts that are objectionable and find reasonable compromises. In my humble opinion, we will end up with a better law by this method than by having alternating parties in power completely starting from scratch every few years.
Just my opinion.
Speaking of opinions, if you need some advice regarding real estate, give me a call. I am a licensed real estate broker in Kentucky and Indiana and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate. I works with Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Retail and Investment properties. Heck I can even set you up with a residential realtor. Anyway, I would love to help.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
ofc: 502-379-6005
cel: 502-905-5274
dmccoy@ccre.biz
Today is a historic day because the Supreme Court released its opinion that ObamaCare is constitutional. Honestly I have mixed emotions about this. I am somewhat taken aback that the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to require us to purchase something. While you might argue that this was a necessity to get healthcare under control, the fact is that this precedent has now been set and one has to wonder what else the government can now require us to do.
I am already hearing outcries that since the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional, that it must be repealed. Perhaps so. As one friend opined, just because a law is constitutional, does not necessarily mean that it is a good law. But, suppose the law is repealed. What would it then be replaced with? Given the decision of the Supreme Court, it would seem to me that there is a more prudent way to proceed.
First of all, I think all of the arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law should now stop. We have a decision from our Supreme Court and accordingly, we should recognize its ruling and accept it. That is the way our government is designed. It is no more acceptable to show contempt for the US Supreme Court, than it is to show contempt for Congress or contempt for the Office of President. Like it or not, ObamaCare is constitutional.
Secondly, since it is constitutional, I think that we (all of us) should examine what is acceptable to us all and agree to accept it. Then let's work on the parts that are objectionable and find reasonable compromises. In my humble opinion, we will end up with a better law by this method than by having alternating parties in power completely starting from scratch every few years.
Just my opinion.
Speaking of opinions, if you need some advice regarding real estate, give me a call. I am a licensed real estate broker in Kentucky and Indiana and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate. I works with Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Retail and Investment properties. Heck I can even set you up with a residential realtor. Anyway, I would love to help.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
ofc: 502-379-6005
cel: 502-905-5274
dmccoy@ccre.biz
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Fairness Issue
In President Obama's State of the Union Address, the President called for fairness. How could any of us oppose fairness? To do so would seem almost anti-American. My question to Mr. Obama is, "who gets to decide what is fair?"
Several years ago, my first wife and I had dinner with 2 other couples. One of the couples ordered very expensive dinners with appetizers, desserts, drinks before dinner and fairly expensive wine. We on the other hand had no alchohol, no appetizers, no dessert and modest entrees. When the check came, the other two couples decided that we should all split the check evenly. Our bill was more than $100 more than it would have been. Was that fair?
At one point or another, I would bet that you have been in a similar situation. Certainly, I think that we need to consider the fairest way to divide expenses BUT there is also the issue about whether or not it is fair to have certain expenses in the first place. It is pretty easy to be generous when you are spending someone else's money. We should be wary of those who would run up expenses for which they know they will not be personally responsible. It is equally unfair to spend way beyond the budget and then cry foul because those who have to pay it object when you demand a payment way beyond what was expected .
If you think that the issue of fairness only applies to the wealthy, you should think again. Consider energy costs. Right now, the United States has large reserves of oil and gas, which our government will not allow us to mine. Instead we are reliant on imported oil and gas. Is it fair to expect our citizens to pay more for fuel? Is it fair to send these jobs to other countries when we have millions out of work here?
My point is that one should be careful claiming a superior moral position on fairness. We should be wary of anyone making policy which by definition creates a preference of one group at the expense of another.
Just my opinion. Have a great day.
BTW - If you would like an opinion on real estate, I provide opinions on that as well. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and help Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Retail and Investment properties. Heck, I can even set you up with someone to help with residential real estate. Give me a call. I would love to help.
ALSO - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me clarifying that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me, of course.) If you would like to offer a different point of view, or even a supporting point of view, you may feel free to make a comment. You should not however feel free to make inappropriate or offensive remarks. Should I see any such remarks, I will exercise my right to delete them.
Thanks for reading!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
ofc: (502) 379-6005
cel: (502) 905-5274
e-mail: DMcCoy@ccre.biz
Several years ago, my first wife and I had dinner with 2 other couples. One of the couples ordered very expensive dinners with appetizers, desserts, drinks before dinner and fairly expensive wine. We on the other hand had no alchohol, no appetizers, no dessert and modest entrees. When the check came, the other two couples decided that we should all split the check evenly. Our bill was more than $100 more than it would have been. Was that fair?
At one point or another, I would bet that you have been in a similar situation. Certainly, I think that we need to consider the fairest way to divide expenses BUT there is also the issue about whether or not it is fair to have certain expenses in the first place. It is pretty easy to be generous when you are spending someone else's money. We should be wary of those who would run up expenses for which they know they will not be personally responsible. It is equally unfair to spend way beyond the budget and then cry foul because those who have to pay it object when you demand a payment way beyond what was expected .
If you think that the issue of fairness only applies to the wealthy, you should think again. Consider energy costs. Right now, the United States has large reserves of oil and gas, which our government will not allow us to mine. Instead we are reliant on imported oil and gas. Is it fair to expect our citizens to pay more for fuel? Is it fair to send these jobs to other countries when we have millions out of work here?
My point is that one should be careful claiming a superior moral position on fairness. We should be wary of anyone making policy which by definition creates a preference of one group at the expense of another.
Just my opinion. Have a great day.
BTW - If you would like an opinion on real estate, I provide opinions on that as well. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and help Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Retail and Investment properties. Heck, I can even set you up with someone to help with residential real estate. Give me a call. I would love to help.
ALSO - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me clarifying that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me, of course.) If you would like to offer a different point of view, or even a supporting point of view, you may feel free to make a comment. You should not however feel free to make inappropriate or offensive remarks. Should I see any such remarks, I will exercise my right to delete them.
Thanks for reading!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
ofc: (502) 379-6005
cel: (502) 905-5274
e-mail: DMcCoy@ccre.biz
Friday, December 9, 2011
Economic Development Issues - the case of Amazon.com
This is an interesting article published by CoStar about Amazon.com. While the issue of economice development funds is interesting in and of itself, Amazon like the rest of the e-tail industry is unhappy about state laws that require it to collect sales tax on on-line sales. In this case, Amazon abandoned a $100,000,000 proposed facility that would have created 1,250 jobs in SC because the state did not pass a law to exempt Amazon from having to collect the tax.
http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Amazoncom-Flexes-Real-Estate-Jobs-Muscle-In-Location-Decisions/128728
The practice of Economic Development is in my experience an uncertain science. States and municipalities regularly compete for large projects that would create new jobs and provide stimulus to the economy. The results are sometimes unpredictable.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Should the state be willing for forgo large tax receipts in exchange for the jobs and the investment in the community? I think that it is an interesting question.
Have a great day, all.
David
David W McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Amazoncom-Flexes-Real-Estate-Jobs-Muscle-In-Location-Decisions/128728
The practice of Economic Development is in my experience an uncertain science. States and municipalities regularly compete for large projects that would create new jobs and provide stimulus to the economy. The results are sometimes unpredictable.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Should the state be willing for forgo large tax receipts in exchange for the jobs and the investment in the community? I think that it is an interesting question.
Have a great day, all.
David
David W McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Super Committee Fail?
The deadline for the Super Committee to come up with 1.2 Trillion in budget cuts has passed without a deal. While pundits are berating the committee and politics in general and the markets are reacting negatively, I believe that the winners in this entire process are the American people.
Who seriously believed that we would face any other outcome? As soon as the committee was formed, several of the members immediately changed the goal from coming up with 1.2 Trillion in cuts to increasing taxes so that the cuts would not have to be made. One member reportedly even proposed counting the "savings" from no longer being at war in Iraq as budget savings in order to avoid any serious cuts at all.
Having a son who is a soldier, I have to admit, I am not exactly happy with what the automatic cuts are going toward. Still, the reality of the situation is that no matter what is cut, someone is going to be unhappy. And while we are hearing of doom and gloom, you have to remember that these cuts are over a 10 year period. The reality of the situation is that the amounts left are not too far off from the budget amounts these same categories had just a couple of years ago.
I don't know about you but my family has not only had to manage without an increase for the last several years, we have had to cut back tremendously. We all know that this is possible. Yet somehow when Federal Government expenditures do not go up, the headlines indicate that we have a catastrophe.
The truth is that given the politics of the situation, there is no politically viable way to make any real cuts in the budget. If you doubt this, simply look back at the budget impasse of the summer. For all of the complaints and finger pointing at how unreasonable those wanting cuts were, they only managed about $7 Billion in cuts on the budget. And while $7 Billion is a lot of money, it is a miniscule amout relative to the entire Federal budget. (making me wonder, who really was unreasonable)
The automatic cuts are not everything we need but it is a badly needed start.
Just my opinion.
BTW - If you need an opinion on Real Estate, give me a call. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail properties. Heck, I can even hook you up on residential real estate. Give me a call if you need help.
ALSO - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me noting that these opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me or not). Readers are welcome to make comments and are welcome to disagree. What is not welcome is inappropriate or offensive comments. Should there be any such comments, I will delete them.
Have a great day, all!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY
Who seriously believed that we would face any other outcome? As soon as the committee was formed, several of the members immediately changed the goal from coming up with 1.2 Trillion in cuts to increasing taxes so that the cuts would not have to be made. One member reportedly even proposed counting the "savings" from no longer being at war in Iraq as budget savings in order to avoid any serious cuts at all.
Having a son who is a soldier, I have to admit, I am not exactly happy with what the automatic cuts are going toward. Still, the reality of the situation is that no matter what is cut, someone is going to be unhappy. And while we are hearing of doom and gloom, you have to remember that these cuts are over a 10 year period. The reality of the situation is that the amounts left are not too far off from the budget amounts these same categories had just a couple of years ago.
I don't know about you but my family has not only had to manage without an increase for the last several years, we have had to cut back tremendously. We all know that this is possible. Yet somehow when Federal Government expenditures do not go up, the headlines indicate that we have a catastrophe.
The truth is that given the politics of the situation, there is no politically viable way to make any real cuts in the budget. If you doubt this, simply look back at the budget impasse of the summer. For all of the complaints and finger pointing at how unreasonable those wanting cuts were, they only managed about $7 Billion in cuts on the budget. And while $7 Billion is a lot of money, it is a miniscule amout relative to the entire Federal budget. (making me wonder, who really was unreasonable)
The automatic cuts are not everything we need but it is a badly needed start.
Just my opinion.
BTW - If you need an opinion on Real Estate, give me a call. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail properties. Heck, I can even hook you up on residential real estate. Give me a call if you need help.
ALSO - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me noting that these opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me or not). Readers are welcome to make comments and are welcome to disagree. What is not welcome is inappropriate or offensive comments. Should there be any such comments, I will delete them.
Have a great day, all!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY
Friday, November 18, 2011
Time to Revamp Minimum Wage Laws?
We are being innundated with bad economic news: Budget problems, tax problems, and reportedly a historically high poverty rate in our country. On the budget side, some are claiming that we simply do not get enough taxes from the wealthy and if only we increased their taxes, everything would be okay. On the tax front, we are being told that the current tax system is really the problem and that perhaps a revamp of the tax code to a single tax rate is in order. And finally we are told that the problem is the wages and that we need to focus on changes to eliminate poverty.
So why isn't the obvious solution raising the minimum wage to $250,000 per year? Overnight everyone in America is wealthy and by default we go to a single tax rate tax system and everyone pays there fair share. Budget Balanced. Poverty Eliminated. Tax Fairness Achieved. Problem Solved. Right? ...
Right now, you are probably thinking, "What an idiot! There is no way that could work." And you are right. If we passed a law like that, we would cause huge economic turmoil. Overnight, businesses would have to either raise prices outrageously in order to pay their employees or perhaps fire as many people as possible or declare bankruptcy. We could expect hyperinflation, hyper unemployment or perhaps both. AND it is also very unlikely to improve the wealth distribution in America in a positive way at all.
It is unclear what having a minimum wage accomplishes. Normally, the legal minimum wage actually trails the market determined minimum wage. So when a new minimum wage is set there is normally very little effect seen. However, it is a different story if the legally required minimum wage exceeds the market OR if there is a downturn in the economy. In those cases, we can expect to see the same mechanisms in play as our extreme example above, meaning increases in inflation and / or unemployment.
I don't claim to have all of the answers and I understand that in talking about those making minimum wage, we are generally talking about the most vulnerable in our society. Still, one has to wonder how much we are helping this most vulnerable group if we are enacting laws that increase the costs of goods and services for them and decreases the number of jobs available to them.
With the US going on nearly 3 years of unemployment rates near 10%, I wonder what would happen if the minimum wage was decreased instead of increased. People could still decide not to work for that wage. But perhaps there would be some people who have been unable to find work who would welcome having a job.
Politically, I do not think that this can happen. Minimum wage laws tend to be politically popular. The public views them as their legislators looking out for them. Legislators also seem to like them. And there is at least the perception that in having a minimum wage, we have also created a floor for a minimum income. In reality that is not the case.
Just my opinion. Have a great day.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
BTW - If you would like an opinion or some help regarding real estate, I would love to help. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail Properties. I am licensed in KY and IN.
Also, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me clarifying that the views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily shared by Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me, of course.) If you would like, you are free to make a comment and different opinions are welcome. What is not welcome is inappropriate remarks and I will exercise my right to delete any content which I find objectionable.
So why isn't the obvious solution raising the minimum wage to $250,000 per year? Overnight everyone in America is wealthy and by default we go to a single tax rate tax system and everyone pays there fair share. Budget Balanced. Poverty Eliminated. Tax Fairness Achieved. Problem Solved. Right? ...
Right now, you are probably thinking, "What an idiot! There is no way that could work." And you are right. If we passed a law like that, we would cause huge economic turmoil. Overnight, businesses would have to either raise prices outrageously in order to pay their employees or perhaps fire as many people as possible or declare bankruptcy. We could expect hyperinflation, hyper unemployment or perhaps both. AND it is also very unlikely to improve the wealth distribution in America in a positive way at all.
It is unclear what having a minimum wage accomplishes. Normally, the legal minimum wage actually trails the market determined minimum wage. So when a new minimum wage is set there is normally very little effect seen. However, it is a different story if the legally required minimum wage exceeds the market OR if there is a downturn in the economy. In those cases, we can expect to see the same mechanisms in play as our extreme example above, meaning increases in inflation and / or unemployment.
I don't claim to have all of the answers and I understand that in talking about those making minimum wage, we are generally talking about the most vulnerable in our society. Still, one has to wonder how much we are helping this most vulnerable group if we are enacting laws that increase the costs of goods and services for them and decreases the number of jobs available to them.
With the US going on nearly 3 years of unemployment rates near 10%, I wonder what would happen if the minimum wage was decreased instead of increased. People could still decide not to work for that wage. But perhaps there would be some people who have been unable to find work who would welcome having a job.
Politically, I do not think that this can happen. Minimum wage laws tend to be politically popular. The public views them as their legislators looking out for them. Legislators also seem to like them. And there is at least the perception that in having a minimum wage, we have also created a floor for a minimum income. In reality that is not the case.
Just my opinion. Have a great day.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
BTW - If you would like an opinion or some help regarding real estate, I would love to help. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers, Sellers and Investors. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail Properties. I am licensed in KY and IN.
Also, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me clarifying that the views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily shared by Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents, or employees (other than me, of course.) If you would like, you are free to make a comment and different opinions are welcome. What is not welcome is inappropriate remarks and I will exercise my right to delete any content which I find objectionable.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Why Occupy Wall Street Matters
There are those, especially from conservative circles, that are quick to dismiss the Occupy Wall Street movement. On the other hand, it would appear that the more liberal circles are trying to claim it for their own. I am not sure that either of these approaches is wise.
After nearly 2 months, it is clear that the OWS is not simply a flash in the pan. It is also clear that it has struck a chord and that there are a lot of people wanting to support it. What is unclear is what OWS is really for or against. There are those trying to co-opt the movement by claiming that it supports their agenda but as far as anyone can tell, there is no real leadership and no clearly defined shared set of goals.
It is also clear that OWS is different from the movement which have occurred in other parts of the world. In general, ignoring Oakland, the protests have been peaceful. As far as I can tell, no one expects the OWS group to become violent. It seems to me to be very different from the Arab Spring,
What is clear, is that there are a lot of people across the country who are unhappy, AND this includes more than just the OWS protesters. I think that is why OWS has not died. OWS is a tangible symbol of a country that is weary of difficult times. For some that may be years of high unemployment, which resulted in someone in their family being laid off, perhaps multiple times. For some, that may be years of war, where family members have been deployed or perhaps injured or killed. For some, it may be the injustice of billions of dollars of tax bail outs which kept millionaires employed while some families faced foreclosure on their homes.
Different parties may have different ideas as to the best way to resolve these hard times for our country but I believe that whoever leads us out of this morass will have to satisfy the country at large that they hear their concerns and understand their fears and pain in order to be successful.
Anyway, that is just my opinion. You may of course feel free to disagree and you are free to post comments expressing your point of view. What you are not free to do however, is to post inappropriate or offensive comments. Should I see any such comments, I reserve my right to delete them.
Thanks, everyone. Have a great day and be sure to get out to vote today!
By the way, if you would like an opinion on Commercial Real Estate, I would love to help you. I work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers and Sellers. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail properties. I am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate.
ALSO, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me stating that the opinions presented here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents or employees (other than me, of course).
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
After nearly 2 months, it is clear that the OWS is not simply a flash in the pan. It is also clear that it has struck a chord and that there are a lot of people wanting to support it. What is unclear is what OWS is really for or against. There are those trying to co-opt the movement by claiming that it supports their agenda but as far as anyone can tell, there is no real leadership and no clearly defined shared set of goals.
It is also clear that OWS is different from the movement which have occurred in other parts of the world. In general, ignoring Oakland, the protests have been peaceful. As far as I can tell, no one expects the OWS group to become violent. It seems to me to be very different from the Arab Spring,
What is clear, is that there are a lot of people across the country who are unhappy, AND this includes more than just the OWS protesters. I think that is why OWS has not died. OWS is a tangible symbol of a country that is weary of difficult times. For some that may be years of high unemployment, which resulted in someone in their family being laid off, perhaps multiple times. For some, that may be years of war, where family members have been deployed or perhaps injured or killed. For some, it may be the injustice of billions of dollars of tax bail outs which kept millionaires employed while some families faced foreclosure on their homes.
Different parties may have different ideas as to the best way to resolve these hard times for our country but I believe that whoever leads us out of this morass will have to satisfy the country at large that they hear their concerns and understand their fears and pain in order to be successful.
Anyway, that is just my opinion. You may of course feel free to disagree and you are free to post comments expressing your point of view. What you are not free to do however, is to post inappropriate or offensive comments. Should I see any such comments, I reserve my right to delete them.
Thanks, everyone. Have a great day and be sure to get out to vote today!
By the way, if you would like an opinion on Commercial Real Estate, I would love to help you. I work with Landlords, Tenants, Buyers and Sellers. I handle Office, Industrial, Land, Investment and Retail properties. I am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana and I specialize in Commercial Real Estate.
ALSO, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me stating that the opinions presented here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, its brokers, agents or employees (other than me, of course).
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
On one level, I can identify with the participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement. In recent years, I have been outraged as companies like Enron, manipulated markets to make a buck, or as companies like AIG, rescued by billions of dollars of taxpayer money paid themselves huge bonuses and went on luxury trips on the taxpayer's dime. As thousands of people lost work in the recession and thousands of businesses failed, the government didn't offer to bail them out. Against this background, the arrogance of taking giant bonuses and making snide comments about how they deserve them, is especially bitter.
That said, I want to come to defense of corporations and business in general. In Louisville, we are very lucky to have the corporate headquarters of Humana, Yum Brands, Papa Johns International, Brown Forman, and Kindred Healthcare, all of which employ thousands of people. We are also lucky to have UPS, which in addition to employing thousands more also attracted additional jobs to the area as companies like Linens and Things and Amazon built distribution centers in our area because of the proximity to the UPS World Port. Ford has two plants here and recently announced plans to add approximately 1700 jobs. These jobs will create additional jobs as Ford Suppliers get to expand along with the new production. We are also lucky to have GE, which announced a new appliance to be built here in Louisville.
I am sure that there are some that I have overlooked but the point is that these corporations have invested billions of dollars in our community and have given jobs to tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands people here. Besides simply providing employment, many of these companies have also contributed to community programs such as Metro United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Project Warm, the Fund for the Arts, the Kentucky Derby Festival, and Thunder over Louisville just to name a few. They also made it possible for us to build some community projects such as the KFC Yum Center and Papa John's Stadium.
I know that a corporation is not a person and certainly corporations are not perfect. However, I for one would like to thank them for investing on our community and giving our friends, neighbors, and family members jobs.
Have a great day.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana. I work with Office, Industrial, Retail, Investment, and Land Properties. I work with Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. If you would like some help with Commercial Real Estate, let me know. I would love to help.
That said, I want to come to defense of corporations and business in general. In Louisville, we are very lucky to have the corporate headquarters of Humana, Yum Brands, Papa Johns International, Brown Forman, and Kindred Healthcare, all of which employ thousands of people. We are also lucky to have UPS, which in addition to employing thousands more also attracted additional jobs to the area as companies like Linens and Things and Amazon built distribution centers in our area because of the proximity to the UPS World Port. Ford has two plants here and recently announced plans to add approximately 1700 jobs. These jobs will create additional jobs as Ford Suppliers get to expand along with the new production. We are also lucky to have GE, which announced a new appliance to be built here in Louisville.
I am sure that there are some that I have overlooked but the point is that these corporations have invested billions of dollars in our community and have given jobs to tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands people here. Besides simply providing employment, many of these companies have also contributed to community programs such as Metro United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Project Warm, the Fund for the Arts, the Kentucky Derby Festival, and Thunder over Louisville just to name a few. They also made it possible for us to build some community projects such as the KFC Yum Center and Papa John's Stadium.
I know that a corporation is not a person and certainly corporations are not perfect. However, I for one would like to thank them for investing on our community and giving our friends, neighbors, and family members jobs.
Have a great day.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana. I work with Office, Industrial, Retail, Investment, and Land Properties. I work with Buyers, Sellers, Landlords, Tenants and Investors. If you would like some help with Commercial Real Estate, let me know. I would love to help.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Taxing the Rich
During the Presidential Campaign of 1988, our first President Bush, famously promised no new taxes. In fact, I believe his words were: "Read my lips! No, new taxes!" After the election, the Democratic congress convinced President Bush that there would be dire consequences without tax increases. He relented on his promise, which many believe led him to lose the election to Bill Clinton in 1992.
Like the tax increases being proposed today, the taxes were supposed to only fall on the rich so that the ordinary man (or woman) would not face undue hardship with additional taxes. So in 1990, one of the taxes proposed and passed was on yachts. Congress reasoned that only the rich would be buying yachts and therefore, only the rich would suffer the effects.
What happened instead was the that tax nearly killed the ship building business in New England. The wealthy who had previously bought yachts, simply starting buying them in places like the Bahamas where there was no tax. So not only was it ineffective in producing additional tax revenue, it created tremendous economic problems to an entire industry and put many hard working middle class people out of work.
Presently, in the national debate on taxes, President Obama is repeatly pushing to increase taxes on the rich. Those opposing the measure are being depicted as not caring about the poor and only standing up for the rights of the rich. History suggests otherwise. If you don't believe me, ask the men and women who lost their jobs in the ship building industry in the 1990s.
Like the tax increases being proposed today, the taxes were supposed to only fall on the rich so that the ordinary man (or woman) would not face undue hardship with additional taxes. So in 1990, one of the taxes proposed and passed was on yachts. Congress reasoned that only the rich would be buying yachts and therefore, only the rich would suffer the effects.
What happened instead was the that tax nearly killed the ship building business in New England. The wealthy who had previously bought yachts, simply starting buying them in places like the Bahamas where there was no tax. So not only was it ineffective in producing additional tax revenue, it created tremendous economic problems to an entire industry and put many hard working middle class people out of work.
Presently, in the national debate on taxes, President Obama is repeatly pushing to increase taxes on the rich. Those opposing the measure are being depicted as not caring about the poor and only standing up for the rights of the rich. History suggests otherwise. If you don't believe me, ask the men and women who lost their jobs in the ship building industry in the 1990s.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Social Security - A ponzi Scheme?
Governor Rick Perry has been taking some heat for claiming that Social Security is basically a Ponzi Scheme and following the financial crisis of 2008, many politicians that had been advocating for privatization of Social Security have been vilified. Are these criticisms fair?
As a school administrator, my wife is essentially a Kentucky state employee and as such she is not part of the Social Security program. She has a retirement account managed by the Kentucky State Teachers Retirement Fund. She actually has to contribute a somewhat higher percentage of her pay toward this fund than those of us paying into Social Security. The big difference however is that there is an actual retirement account that has her money in it. And while the amount in that account fluctuates according to the way it is invested, it is hers and will always be there for her.
Contrast this with Social Security, where there are no accounts and no actual money being saved. Payouts come from current taxes. If the tax were to stop today, there would be no money to pay retirement. The current payouts come entirely from the taxes collected from the currently employed.
So, how is this any different from having Bernie Madoff manage your retirement accounts? Bernie who perpetrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history was doing just this - getting new investors to put money into the funds and paying those funds out to the original investors. But ultimately, it was unsustainable. Bottom line is this, if a private firm were managing your retirement money this way, somebody would be going to jail.
Looking back, I would say that those advocating the privization of Social Security win. The accounts may have decreases in value with the decline in the stock market BUT in almost every case, there is still money there which will be available to those retirees. Perhaps not as much as they had hoped but it is there.
The truth of the matter is, that the government does a terrible job of managing money. And there is no reason to think that will ever change no matter who is in charge.
Just my opinion.
Speaking of which, if you would like an opinion on real estate, I would love to help. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana. I would love to help.
BTW - Keeping my broker happy, you should know that this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my company, my broker, or any of employees of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, other than me, of course. AND if you have a different point of view, I am happy for you to present it in the comments.
Thanks, so much all. Have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
As a school administrator, my wife is essentially a Kentucky state employee and as such she is not part of the Social Security program. She has a retirement account managed by the Kentucky State Teachers Retirement Fund. She actually has to contribute a somewhat higher percentage of her pay toward this fund than those of us paying into Social Security. The big difference however is that there is an actual retirement account that has her money in it. And while the amount in that account fluctuates according to the way it is invested, it is hers and will always be there for her.
Contrast this with Social Security, where there are no accounts and no actual money being saved. Payouts come from current taxes. If the tax were to stop today, there would be no money to pay retirement. The current payouts come entirely from the taxes collected from the currently employed.
So, how is this any different from having Bernie Madoff manage your retirement accounts? Bernie who perpetrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history was doing just this - getting new investors to put money into the funds and paying those funds out to the original investors. But ultimately, it was unsustainable. Bottom line is this, if a private firm were managing your retirement money this way, somebody would be going to jail.
Looking back, I would say that those advocating the privization of Social Security win. The accounts may have decreases in value with the decline in the stock market BUT in almost every case, there is still money there which will be available to those retirees. Perhaps not as much as they had hoped but it is there.
The truth of the matter is, that the government does a terrible job of managing money. And there is no reason to think that will ever change no matter who is in charge.
Just my opinion.
Speaking of which, if you would like an opinion on real estate, I would love to help. I specialize in Commercial Real Estate and am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana. I would love to help.
BTW - Keeping my broker happy, you should know that this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my company, my broker, or any of employees of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate, other than me, of course. AND if you have a different point of view, I am happy for you to present it in the comments.
Thanks, so much all. Have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Spending our way to Prosperity - Aliens?
Paul Krugman, previous winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, is no doubt a brilliant economist. So knowing that he knows more about Economics than I could ever hope to, it is with some trepidation that I comment on his recent comments that all we need to get our economy running is a good Alien Invasion.
Now lest you think that Paul Krugman is crazy, he reportedly made these comments when discussing what to do about the current economy. Krugman's point was intended to call attention to the widely held belief that it was the spending of the World War II effort that pulled the US and the world out of the Great Depression. As I understand it, his point was that if we had a threat serious enough that we would consider spending without limits that we could expect the same type of response in about 18 months.
Yet, when we think about that does that make sense? After all, if that were the case, wouldn't Greece have a booming economy right now instead of riots in the streets? Something about that just doesn't ring true.
I think that what is missing here is a little more perspective. During World War II, Germany was also spending without limits in order to win the war, but no one would claim that their economy was in terrific shape after the war. What is different about the US is that the US won the war. Obvious as that may seem, it is a crucial difference that I think explains why the US economy boomed while Germany's economy busted. World War II was not only fought by armies, it was also fought by economies. At the end of World War II, the economies of Europe as well as their infrastructure were destroyed. That left the US as the only major economy left in the world, which then provided the money, and the goods and services necessary to rebuild the rest of the world.
The world's experience with Communist economies would seem to support this idea. After all in a true communist economy, 100% of the economy is basically government spending. But the communist economies were notorious for not functioning well on several levels and I am not aware of anyone who would argue that they were successful. None of them could have been considered prosperous.
Don't get me wrong, I think that there are areas where government spending is appropriate and helpful to an economy but I do not believe that government spending in and of itself can bring prosperity.
Just my opinion.
AND using that segue way - if you want an opinion on your real estate matters, give me a call. I am a licensed broker in Kentucky and Indiana and specialize in commercial real estate.
By the way, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate it if I mentioned that the views in this article are my opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate or any of those who work here (other than me, of course). AND if you disagree or have an opinion you would like to share, please feel free to make a comment.
Thanks, all. Have a terrific day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Now lest you think that Paul Krugman is crazy, he reportedly made these comments when discussing what to do about the current economy. Krugman's point was intended to call attention to the widely held belief that it was the spending of the World War II effort that pulled the US and the world out of the Great Depression. As I understand it, his point was that if we had a threat serious enough that we would consider spending without limits that we could expect the same type of response in about 18 months.
Yet, when we think about that does that make sense? After all, if that were the case, wouldn't Greece have a booming economy right now instead of riots in the streets? Something about that just doesn't ring true.
I think that what is missing here is a little more perspective. During World War II, Germany was also spending without limits in order to win the war, but no one would claim that their economy was in terrific shape after the war. What is different about the US is that the US won the war. Obvious as that may seem, it is a crucial difference that I think explains why the US economy boomed while Germany's economy busted. World War II was not only fought by armies, it was also fought by economies. At the end of World War II, the economies of Europe as well as their infrastructure were destroyed. That left the US as the only major economy left in the world, which then provided the money, and the goods and services necessary to rebuild the rest of the world.
The world's experience with Communist economies would seem to support this idea. After all in a true communist economy, 100% of the economy is basically government spending. But the communist economies were notorious for not functioning well on several levels and I am not aware of anyone who would argue that they were successful. None of them could have been considered prosperous.
Don't get me wrong, I think that there are areas where government spending is appropriate and helpful to an economy but I do not believe that government spending in and of itself can bring prosperity.
Just my opinion.
AND using that segue way - if you want an opinion on your real estate matters, give me a call. I am a licensed broker in Kentucky and Indiana and specialize in commercial real estate.
By the way, I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate it if I mentioned that the views in this article are my opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate or any of those who work here (other than me, of course). AND if you disagree or have an opinion you would like to share, please feel free to make a comment.
Thanks, all. Have a terrific day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Tax Issue - How much should taxes be?
Today, I may well lose some friends I made in my last post but I suspect that I regain some friends I lost as well. I waited a while before posting this because I was hoping to get some additional input. As we enter a time where the nation will be debating our tax issues, I think that the appropriate questions should be, "what should our overall tax rate be?"
Over and over, as I read about taxes, it would seem that history has repeatedly demonstrated that, contrary to what one might expect, federal tax revenue has increased following tax cuts. And so it would seem that prudent tax policy would dictate that any time you need more federal tax revenue, you should cut the tax rates. I am sure that some would jump to embrace this strategy but if pressed, I think that even the most ardent tax opponent would have to concede that this strategy could not work forever. If it could, why would we even be concerned about having taxes at all or about the amount of our federal government's spending? Logic would tell us that if the tax rate were zero, then we must be getting less tax revenue that if the tax rate were positive.
For both of these to be true, we have to assume that somewhere along the spectrum lies an optimal tax rate. This rate would be the point where if you raise the rate, you actually decrease total tax revenue OR if you lower the rate, you would decrease total tax revenue. It may well be that this rate is not constant and it may depend on several other factors. In fact, if I had to guess, I would think that the optimal rate would be determined in part by what the public at large feels is reasonable and supportable.
In my mind, if our government is being responsible, this is the question that they have to address. Once determined, all of the other questions can then begin to be addressed. We would then know where to set our taxes and also where to set our spending. While I suspect that in our current situation, this is not the case, it may well be that our Federal taxes should be increased. It may also be true that our Federal taxes should be cut. But it seems to me that the road to financial responsibility of our nation should begin with this question.
Just my opinion. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, all and have a great day.
By the way, if you need an opinion about real estate, I would love to be of assistance. Give me a call or shoot me an e-mail. I am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana and specialize in commercial real estate.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Parkway
Louisville, KY
PS - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me stating that these opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate of any of the others who work here.
Over and over, as I read about taxes, it would seem that history has repeatedly demonstrated that, contrary to what one might expect, federal tax revenue has increased following tax cuts. And so it would seem that prudent tax policy would dictate that any time you need more federal tax revenue, you should cut the tax rates. I am sure that some would jump to embrace this strategy but if pressed, I think that even the most ardent tax opponent would have to concede that this strategy could not work forever. If it could, why would we even be concerned about having taxes at all or about the amount of our federal government's spending? Logic would tell us that if the tax rate were zero, then we must be getting less tax revenue that if the tax rate were positive.
For both of these to be true, we have to assume that somewhere along the spectrum lies an optimal tax rate. This rate would be the point where if you raise the rate, you actually decrease total tax revenue OR if you lower the rate, you would decrease total tax revenue. It may well be that this rate is not constant and it may depend on several other factors. In fact, if I had to guess, I would think that the optimal rate would be determined in part by what the public at large feels is reasonable and supportable.
In my mind, if our government is being responsible, this is the question that they have to address. Once determined, all of the other questions can then begin to be addressed. We would then know where to set our taxes and also where to set our spending. While I suspect that in our current situation, this is not the case, it may well be that our Federal taxes should be increased. It may also be true that our Federal taxes should be cut. But it seems to me that the road to financial responsibility of our nation should begin with this question.
Just my opinion. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, all and have a great day.
By the way, if you need an opinion about real estate, I would love to be of assistance. Give me a call or shoot me an e-mail. I am licensed in Kentucky and Indiana and specialize in commercial real estate.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Parkway
Louisville, KY
PS - I am sure that my managing broker would appreciate me stating that these opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate of any of the others who work here.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Tax Issue - Promoting Class conflict
It would appear that the next great issue in Washington will be about raising taxes. Our President and his supporters want to raise taxes. The President wants to garner support for this position by promoting class conflict. He claims that he has no intention of raising taxes on the ordinary citizens, he will only raise taxes on the wealthy. He goes so far as to define the wealthy as those making $250,000 per year or more, which includes 2% of the US population. To further this agenda, claims are made to indicate that the wealthy do not pay enough taxes and certainly there are at least undertones that the wealthy somehow have been cheating ordinary Americans, or at least that ordinary Americans have been having to carry the load on behalf of the wealthy.
Is that a fair claim? One of the claims is that all of the tax cuts have cut taxes for the wealthy but not for the ordinary Americans. I suppose this is true but of course, if you are already paying no income tax, you cannot expect your taxes to go lower. It only makes sense that a tax cut would only affect the 53% of Americans who are paying federal income taxes. So, if it has no effect on us, why should we be be angry that the wealthy are getting a break. It seems a little like being mad that someone who bought your dinner, used a coupon at the restaurant.
I am not necessarily against taxes per se. It may be that we need to review our tax system but I am opposed to vilifying law abiding citizens and promoting class conflict in order to promote this agenda.
Just my opinion.
By the way, if you need an opinion about real estate, give me a call. I am a commercial real estate broker and would love to help you if I can. Have a great day, all.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Is that a fair claim? One of the claims is that all of the tax cuts have cut taxes for the wealthy but not for the ordinary Americans. I suppose this is true but of course, if you are already paying no income tax, you cannot expect your taxes to go lower. It only makes sense that a tax cut would only affect the 53% of Americans who are paying federal income taxes. So, if it has no effect on us, why should we be be angry that the wealthy are getting a break. It seems a little like being mad that someone who bought your dinner, used a coupon at the restaurant.
I am not necessarily against taxes per se. It may be that we need to review our tax system but I am opposed to vilifying law abiding citizens and promoting class conflict in order to promote this agenda.
Just my opinion.
By the way, if you need an opinion about real estate, give me a call. I am a commercial real estate broker and would love to help you if I can. Have a great day, all.
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Friday, July 29, 2011
Debt Ceiling Debate
Perhaps I shouldn't wade into political waters, but the state of the economy affects real estate and especially commercial real estate. Accordingly, these issues are very important for my profession.
Listening to the coverage of the US Debt Ceiling Debate, it seems to me that the media coverage as well as the President of the US want to assign the blame for the impasse at the feet of the Republicans for not caving to the President's demands. The President has repeatedly stated how desperately important it is to raise this Debt Ceiling and indicated that it is irresponsible not to do so. He even threatened not to pay Social Security and our troops if the Debt Ceiling is not raised and then tried to assign the blame for this on the Republicans.
Media coverage aside, logic tells me that if there is no agreement, it must also mean that the President has also not been willing to agree to the terms of the opposing side. We are told that the issues at hand are the level of the Debt Ceiling, the reduction of spending, and tax increases. The President tells us that he thinks raising the Debt Ceiling is imperative, so they are in agreement there. The President also tells us that he believes that getting spending under control is imperative, so they seem to be in agreement there. The one remaining issue then is tax increases.
Taking this all together, it sounds to me like the President is saying that he is willing to let the US government default and allow social security recipients and soldiers to not be paid in order to demand tax increases. If that is the case, I feel like I must be missing something. The President indicated that the consequences were so dire that it would be completely irresponsible not to simply agree to something to allow the Debt Ceiling to be raised and yet he is not agreeing.
The President seems to be saying that the state of the budget is so bad that only the tax increases will allow it to be under control. And yet, all of the information available indicates that the increases desired cannot possibly balance the budget.
I cannot claim to know the President's mind and perhaps he is getting different information from the rest of us, but given that the tax increase is the issue preventing a deal and given that the tax increases could not begin to balance the budget, the President's motives for this demand become suspect. This leads me to wonder if the President is holding the country hostage to try to make political gains at the opposing party's expense. Hopefully, I am wrong, but in my humble opinion, the promotion of class conflict to attain political advantage is not a courageous or helpful policy.
(stepping off my soap box)
Have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
PS - I am sure that my principal broker would appreciate me noting that these are my opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this firm or its other agents and employees.
Listening to the coverage of the US Debt Ceiling Debate, it seems to me that the media coverage as well as the President of the US want to assign the blame for the impasse at the feet of the Republicans for not caving to the President's demands. The President has repeatedly stated how desperately important it is to raise this Debt Ceiling and indicated that it is irresponsible not to do so. He even threatened not to pay Social Security and our troops if the Debt Ceiling is not raised and then tried to assign the blame for this on the Republicans.
Media coverage aside, logic tells me that if there is no agreement, it must also mean that the President has also not been willing to agree to the terms of the opposing side. We are told that the issues at hand are the level of the Debt Ceiling, the reduction of spending, and tax increases. The President tells us that he thinks raising the Debt Ceiling is imperative, so they are in agreement there. The President also tells us that he believes that getting spending under control is imperative, so they seem to be in agreement there. The one remaining issue then is tax increases.
Taking this all together, it sounds to me like the President is saying that he is willing to let the US government default and allow social security recipients and soldiers to not be paid in order to demand tax increases. If that is the case, I feel like I must be missing something. The President indicated that the consequences were so dire that it would be completely irresponsible not to simply agree to something to allow the Debt Ceiling to be raised and yet he is not agreeing.
The President seems to be saying that the state of the budget is so bad that only the tax increases will allow it to be under control. And yet, all of the information available indicates that the increases desired cannot possibly balance the budget.
I cannot claim to know the President's mind and perhaps he is getting different information from the rest of us, but given that the tax increase is the issue preventing a deal and given that the tax increases could not begin to balance the budget, the President's motives for this demand become suspect. This leads me to wonder if the President is holding the country hostage to try to make political gains at the opposing party's expense. Hopefully, I am wrong, but in my humble opinion, the promotion of class conflict to attain political advantage is not a courageous or helpful policy.
(stepping off my soap box)
Have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
PS - I am sure that my principal broker would appreciate me noting that these are my opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this firm or its other agents and employees.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Budget Battles in Washington
Wading into the political waters today, somewhat fearfully... If you wonder why a commercial realtor would address a topic about the US Government budget, the answer is that commercial real estate and residential real estate for that matter is heavily dependent on the economy.
I know that there are a lot of concerns about the budget and I do not want to take them lightly. However, I would like to urge everyone regardless of your political beliefs to support this process. A few years ago, during the presidential campaign, the government benefits of many European countries were often touted. Yet, look at Europe today. Country after country is facing financial crisis and bail outs are being routinely required that are linked to severe financial requirements for the countries receiving aid.
The current spending of the United States has us on a similar course. As I see it, we can either take the initiative to decide for ourselves who to resolve this crisis or allow other countries, perhaps China, to dictate those terms to us a few years down the road. Difficult as it may be, I say let's decide our own future.
I realize that the budget is a political process but I have been angered at the comments coming from our representatives in this debate. As we have faced hard times, who among us has not had to cut back spending 5 or 10%? In my years as a consultant, it was sort of a rule of thumb that it would be fairly easy to get at least a 10% decrease in expenditures for any given company. Yet many of our representatives would have us believe that more than 1% or 2% decrease in our federal budget would be catastrophic.
Again, I do not want to minimize the fact that there will be some hardships in this process. But wouldn't it be better to have to suffer through a 5% or 10% decrease in benefits annually than to lose them completely a few years down the road because of an economic crisis where an outside entity gets to call the shots? Ultimately, I think that our economic health is in jeapordy if we do not act.
Just my opinion. Hope you are enjoying this beautiful day. AND of course, be sure to let me know if you need any help with your real estate needs!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
I know that there are a lot of concerns about the budget and I do not want to take them lightly. However, I would like to urge everyone regardless of your political beliefs to support this process. A few years ago, during the presidential campaign, the government benefits of many European countries were often touted. Yet, look at Europe today. Country after country is facing financial crisis and bail outs are being routinely required that are linked to severe financial requirements for the countries receiving aid.
The current spending of the United States has us on a similar course. As I see it, we can either take the initiative to decide for ourselves who to resolve this crisis or allow other countries, perhaps China, to dictate those terms to us a few years down the road. Difficult as it may be, I say let's decide our own future.
I realize that the budget is a political process but I have been angered at the comments coming from our representatives in this debate. As we have faced hard times, who among us has not had to cut back spending 5 or 10%? In my years as a consultant, it was sort of a rule of thumb that it would be fairly easy to get at least a 10% decrease in expenditures for any given company. Yet many of our representatives would have us believe that more than 1% or 2% decrease in our federal budget would be catastrophic.
Again, I do not want to minimize the fact that there will be some hardships in this process. But wouldn't it be better to have to suffer through a 5% or 10% decrease in benefits annually than to lose them completely a few years down the road because of an economic crisis where an outside entity gets to call the shots? Ultimately, I think that our economic health is in jeapordy if we do not act.
Just my opinion. Hope you are enjoying this beautiful day. AND of course, be sure to let me know if you need any help with your real estate needs!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election Day
Get Out and Vote!
Busy day today. Got up early to vote and found that it was easy to get in and out. I managed to vote in about 5 or 10 minutes. Next stop, Starbucks to get an enormous Skinny Hazelnut latte. Again, not much of a wait this morning. Off to work with a stop at Thorntons to fill up the car. Gas was $2.73 / gallon which is lower than it has been lately but still higher than I think it should be - made me glad I had voted today.
I'm sure I dont have to tell you that we are beginning the third year of the recession. In the papers, I read all sorts of news saying that the recession is over. I am hearing all kinds of reports that Louisville is getting new companies and new jobs. Yet, my experience in the market place does not seem to match these reports. I am still having friends lose jobs. Unemployment is still right around 10%. Property values seem to have decreased anywhere from 20% to 40%.
If ever there was a time to motivate you to vote, I would argue that this is it.
Please get out and vote and have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Busy day today. Got up early to vote and found that it was easy to get in and out. I managed to vote in about 5 or 10 minutes. Next stop, Starbucks to get an enormous Skinny Hazelnut latte. Again, not much of a wait this morning. Off to work with a stop at Thorntons to fill up the car. Gas was $2.73 / gallon which is lower than it has been lately but still higher than I think it should be - made me glad I had voted today.
I'm sure I dont have to tell you that we are beginning the third year of the recession. In the papers, I read all sorts of news saying that the recession is over. I am hearing all kinds of reports that Louisville is getting new companies and new jobs. Yet, my experience in the market place does not seem to match these reports. I am still having friends lose jobs. Unemployment is still right around 10%. Property values seem to have decreased anywhere from 20% to 40%.
If ever there was a time to motivate you to vote, I would argue that this is it.
Please get out and vote and have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)