Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

I can't help but think this is the Daniel Penny effect. Now no one wants to get involved.

In that same vein, when the gay rights group shopped around until they found a baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding and then sued them, it's going to have a chilling effect on honest opinion. 

https://youtube.com/shorts/HeO31hyCB_E?s...aUt7-ZIjkK

(12-28-2024, 02:29 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]The bullets this country dodged are insane..



These people are a disgrace to humanity..

We didn't dodge them, we just survived the full magazine to the chest the demons unloaded on us the last 4 years.

And just wait until we see what Hunter actually got pardoned for doing. I predict that the Big Guy gets the Pillow treatment a day or so before the documents get released by the Trump Admin. That way the MSM can be all, "We won't comment on this out of respect for the Dead" and the left can pretend that Trump is just being his usual Big Meanie Poo self again.

---

(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree.  There is no way you actually believe this Mike.

I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code.  Your first house you get a homestead exemption.  A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect.  The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.

I have no interest in Social Engineering via the Tax Code. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxation, not using it as a behavior hammer.

(12-28-2024, 01:18 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 12:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're overthinking this.
As long as the landlord is fully covering his mortgage payment with the monthly rent, the landlord will end up selling the house for more than he bought it for. He will profit and he will want to do it again. This is called being successful in the real estate business.
If the landlord is not covering his costs with the rent payment, he was aggressively speculating and that's bad for the housing market. This is called being un successful in the real estate business as you paid more for the asset than you can recoup.
The policy really wouldn't change behavior that much, I don't think. Yes it would
We need to do something to make sure the market for housing isn't dominated by landlords.  Why? They provide a service making housing available to the market. Repair and upgrade older housing and provide capital to build new.
Building more housing has costs in terms of traffic and displacing people.  These costs are worth it if we end up with more people owning homes and having more disposable income to keep the economy going, keep kids in the same schools, etc.  The costs are not worth it if we're just feeding a new landlord class.

The first bolded is how it should work in a free society. The rest just comments.

We have a housing shortage.  That's a fact.
Suppose we are building houses as fast as possible given the labor force and tools we have.  That might not be true, but suppose it is.  
Every single family home that a landlord buys is one less single family home that an actual single family can buy.
Now suppose that my second statement is false and we can speed up the rate of home construction.  That would be a supply and demand thing.  Assuming we have done a good job loosening up zoning noise, the supply of homes might increase, but only at increased cost per unit.

I will admit that my idea of forcing a buyout clause in every lease contract might not be a good idea. 
But it is an attempt to address a real problem that must be addressed.

(12-28-2024, 05:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 01:18 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]The first bolded is how it should work in a free society. The rest just comments.

We have a housing shortage.  That's a fact.
Suppose we are building houses as fast as possible given the labor force and tools we have.  That might not be true, but suppose it is.  
Every single family home that a landlord buys is one less single family home that an actual single family can buy.
Now suppose that my second statement is false and we can speed up the rate of home construction.  That would be a supply and demand thing.  Assuming we have done a good job loosening up zoning noise, the supply of you always might increase, but only at increased cost per unit.

I will admit that my idea of forcing a buyout clause in every lease contract might not be a good idea. 
But it is an attempt to address a real problem that must be addressed.

We agree it is not a good idea.

(12-28-2024, 04:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 02:29 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]The bullets this country dodged are insane..



These people are a disgrace to humanity..

We didn't dodge them, we just survived the full magazine to the chest the demons unloaded on us the last 4 years.

And just wait until we see what Hunter actually got pardoned for doing. I predict that the Big Guy gets the Pillow treatment a day or so before the documents get released by the Trump Admin. That way the MSM can be all, "We won't comment on this out of respect for the Dead" and the left can pretend that Trump is just being his usual Big Meanie Poo self again.

---

(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree.  There is no way you actually believe this Mike.

I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code.  Your first house you get a homestead exemption.  A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect.  The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.

I have no interest in Social Engineering via the Tax Code. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxation, not using it as a behavior hammer.

Normally I’d agree but if you have a better idea on how to get corporate America out of this home ownership scheme I am all ears.

(12-28-2024, 09:16 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 04:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]We didn't dodge them, we just survived the full magazine to the chest the demons unloaded on us the last 4 years.

And just wait until we see what Hunter actually got pardoned for doing. I predict that the Big Guy gets the Pillow treatment a day or so before the documents get released by the Trump Admin. That way the MSM can be all, "We won't comment on this out of respect for the Dead" and the left can pretend that Trump is just being his usual Big Meanie Poo self again.

---

I have no interest in Social Engineering via the Tax Code. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxation, not using it as a behavior hammer.

Normally I’d agree but if you have a better idea on how to get corporate America out of this home ownership scheme I am all ears.

I really do not believe the federal government can do anything. They can legislate interstate commerce, but since houses don't cross state lines....This is a State/County issue. I believe California had a law on the ballot a law restricting corporations to 1000 homes. This will be difficult to administer. Here is an article pertaining to Atlanta for reference.

https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/research...o-atlanta/

I went looking for stats on this issue. The first data set the (most provocative) included apartments and multi family. The next included LLC's, this includes individuals that are house flipping.

(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree.  There is no way you actually believe this Mike.

I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code.  Your first house you get a homestead exemption.  A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect.  The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.

We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree.  There is no way you actually believe this Mike.

I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code.  Your first house you get a homestead exemption.  A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect.  The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.

We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

Less over time? Lol. Property tax still goes up 3% even for homestead every year to help pay for Deegans trips to London. Property tax is theft.

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 02:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah I agree.  There is no way you actually believe this Mike.

I’d think the way to achieve the desired outcome is via the tax code.  Your first house you get a homestead exemption.  A second is taxed at X%, a third property a higher tax rate ect.  The goal is to get Blackrock out of the home rental business and get those rental homes on the market for home ownership.

We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

My instincts tell me government should get more productive before adding to existing taxes. Do that first then we can discuss. Otherwise leave the free market alone.

(12-28-2024, 10:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

Less over time? Lol. Property tax still goes up 3% even for homestead every year to help pay for Deegans trips to London. Property tax is theft.

Agreed!!

Mine's due in the next few months, too..

(12-28-2024, 10:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

Less over time? Lol. Property tax still goes up 3% even for homestead every year to help pay for Deegans trips to London. Property tax is theft.

Yes, a person with a homestead exemption pays less over time than someone without one.  If you have a homestead exemption, your property tax increases are capped, regardless of what the market does.  If you do not, the property tax increases faster.  

Aren't you a landlord? Don't you know how this works?!

---

(12-28-2024, 10:31 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

My instincts tell me government should get more productive before adding to existing taxes. Do that first then we can discuss. Otherwise leave the free market alone.

Look at the homestead exemption.  That's a tax decrease.  It shifts the burden, from homeowners, to landlords.

The type of burden shifting we are talking about doesn't have to be a tax increase for anybody.

(12-28-2024, 10:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 10:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We already do things like this.
Florida has a homestead exemption.  You pay less property taxes on your first home, and less over time.
The Feds don't consider sales of first or second homes to be capital gains.  Third and fourth, the income from sales is taxable.  The income from rent is taxable regardless.  
Our tax codes are clearly doing thing that point in this direction already.  Maybe we just need to be a bit more aggressive with it.  But my instinct is we need to think outside the box.

Less over time? Lol. Property tax still goes up 3% even for homestead every year to help pay for Deegans trips to London. Property tax is theft.

We pay modest property taxes here. I don't understand people who call taxation theft while demanding competent and timely government services. Taxes are the cost of civilization. 

No, I am not for excessive and wasteful taxation, I'm for efficient taxation. If you want your roads fixed and sewers to work, ya gotta pay.

If you want to see what the price of cheap gas does to a state drive through South Carolina. Their gas tax is on the low end and their roads and highways suck. I also am against taxes to cover the government's mismanagement of money but streets, roads, emergency services, libraries, etc., are not free.

(12-28-2024, 11:15 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to see what the price of cheap gas does to a state drive through South Carolina. Their gas tax is on the low end and their roads and highways suck. I also am against taxes to cover the government's mismanagement of money but streets, roads, emergency services, libraries, etc., are not free.

No lie told. 95 through there is like driving on gravel.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/18734415...-7J4w&s=19

JUST IN: The “Guardian Angels” will now be patrolling the New York subways because police no longer do it

They blame the SKY HIGH subway crimes on the “Daniel Penny effect,” which scares citizens from stepping in and helping.

THIS is America

The wall can't be built fast enough for me..........

Mexico Is Alerting Citizens About To Be Detained In U.S. Through an App

Mexico has launched a new mobile app designed to help illegal immigrants in the United States receive immediate alerts if President-elect Donald Trump’s border czar tries to detain them. The app, which aims to assist illegal aliens facing potential deportation, allows users to quickly notify family members, consulates, or legal representatives about their deportation. The move comes as Mexico intensifies efforts to protect its citizens amid rising tensions over Trump’s incoming immigration policies.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnol...dgvG_h3z2A

(12-28-2024, 11:02 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 10:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Less over time? Lol. Property tax still goes up 3% even for homestead every year to help pay for Deegans trips to London. Property tax is theft.

We pay modest property taxes here. I don't understand people who call taxation theft while demanding competent and timely government services. Taxes are the cost of civilization. 

No, I am not for excessive and wasteful taxation, I'm for efficient taxation. If you want your roads fixed and sewers to work, ya gotta pay.

Should people who live in more affluent areas pay more for these common services that everyone receives, or should everyone pay an equal share?

(12-29-2024, 04:34 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-28-2024, 11:02 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]We pay modest property taxes here. I don't understand people who call taxation theft while demanding competent and timely government services. Taxes are the cost of civilization. 

No, I am not for excessive and wasteful taxation, I'm for efficient taxation. If you want your roads fixed and sewers to work, ya gotta pay.

Should people who live in more affluent areas pay more for these common services that everyone receives, or should everyone pay an equal share?

Should is the wrong question. 
Can is the right question. 
Can those in less affluent areas actually afford to pay straight up for the share of government services they receive?

(12-29-2024, 05:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2024, 04:34 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Should people who live in more affluent areas pay more for these common services that everyone receives, or should everyone pay an equal share?

Should is the wrong question. 
Can is the right question. 
Can those in less affluent areas actually afford to pay straight up for the share of government services they receive?

Ah, ok. Property taxes should now be based on what you can afford. Got it.

(12-29-2024, 05:15 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2024, 05:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Should is the wrong question. 
Can is the right question. 
Can those in less affluent areas actually afford to pay straight up for the share of government services they receive?

Ah, ok. Property taxes should now be based on what you can afford. Got it.

It's based on the value of your property and it should continue to be based on the value of your property. Do you disagree?