You’re wrong, providing more low-income housing decreases prices overall. Renters and buyers who can qualify for affordable housing don’t compete for more expensive housing options. Reduced competition results in lower prices overall. Also, building more luxury homes results in more affordable housing for everyone else. Both ends of the affordability spectrum impact each other.
I’d post a linked article to support this, but after the Vancouver confusion, it doesn’t seem like you even read them.
Let them move.
Tax beneficial owners.
U.S. citizens are taxed based on citizenship rather than country of residence.
And if they want to renounce US citizenship, because dollars are more important than loyalty to the republic, let them do that and give up their vote and other rights in our government decisions.
With our new pro-US immigration policy, incentivize them (within reason) to hire US residents and citizens for US operations.
I’d support favorable tax treatment for US-domiciled and -owned businesses (within reason).
In fact, I’d consider eliminating corporate taxes in coordination with appropriate tax policy on beneficial owners.
Share buybacks, dividends? Why can’t some of that earnings flow back to labor? The people that helped generate those earnings?
Give labor more equity stakes, like Trump accounts.
BUSINESSES WILL MOVE, not just owners. Capital will also go where it is treated best. These are the realities that the progressive and socialist never truly want to acknowledge. France tested that theory and saw a mass exodus of both capital and millionaires. In the end, they lost tax revenue.
They do that already. Individuals are free to seek employment that provides them with best total compensation package. The more differentiated your skillset, the more likely you can command these terms. Of course, you are also free to start your own business and take on the risks that pay off with those rewards. The other option is to save and build capital, which is nothing more than stored labor. You can then buy into businesses that buyback shares and or distribute dividends.
And I wrote LET THEM MOVE.
Other companies in the market will take their place.
And I also posted some other things that you did not address, such as
And you’ve only said no to several solutions.
What do you say yes to?
What is your solution to reducing income inequality?
It was asked above, but we got crickets.
Let’s ask again:
I don’t. I’m not a Republican. I’m not beholding to a person or political party or ideology. It requires one to contradict themselves, as parties and people will often fall short. Ideologies are far too rigid. Sometimes, we make choices and it is simply the lesser of two bad options
Having said that, I don’t know what the modern Republican party’s fiscal policy is anymore. In many ways, it’s a hybrid of 80’s and 90’s Democratic Party Policies “protect labor” matched with Republican’s default position to keep taxes as low as possible. But, it’s hard to nail down what to call it these days. Trump isn’t really defined by those traditional lanes of what typically is Republican or Democrat, nor do the parties really represent those more classical definitions.
hat is gone within the Republican party is the wing that simply wanted government out of the way. The more modern version wants to figure out how to profit off of it. Admittedly, it is potentially dangerous, self serving, and increases the public’s trust of our institutions.
Of course, the alternative under the current Democratic Party is simply to spend and tax into oblivion with complete disregard to inflation or any fiscal discipline. Their approach to business has been described as, if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it. More recently, they really wanted nothing to do with the business community, other than as a source of donations. Because of that, rather than drawing on leadership expertise, they have drawn more on academics for policy making. It’s been a disaster.
Those are pretty talking points.
But no data to support them.
Let’s evaluate that disaster claim.
Of the top 10 states by GDP, 4 are blue, 3 are red and 3 are purple.
By total GDP, 3 of the top 5 are blue, 2 are red.
By per capita GDP, 4 of the top 5 are blue and all top 4 are blue.
By per capita GDP, of the top 20, 13 are blue and 7 are red.
By per capita GDP, 8 of the bottom 10 are red (ouch).
Of the large GDP states (top 10):
Only 1 large red state makes the per capita top 20: TX.
4 large blue states make the top 20: NY, WA, CA, IL.
Looks like more per person wealth in blue states.
Is that the disaster you speak of?
| Per-capita real GDP rank | Total real GDP rank | State Name | Real Per-Capita GDP | Total Real GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | New York | $124,200 | $2.47T |
| 2 | 12 | Massachusetts | $114,900 | $820B |
| 3 | 10 | Washington | $112,500 | $856B |
| 4 | 42 | Delaware | $111,400 | $103B |
| 5 | 1 | California | $107,800 | $4.25T |
| 6 | 47 | North Dakota | $102,800 | $82B |
| 7 | 23 | Connecticut | $102,400 | $379B |
| 8 | 48 | Alaska | $101,300 | $75B |
| 9 | 34 | Nebraska | $98,800 | $198B |
| 10 | 17 | Colorado | $98,100 | $568B |
| 11 | 5 | Illinois | $94,600 | $1.15T |
| 12 | 11 | New Jersey | $93,400 | $846B |
| 13 | 2 | Texas | $92,800 | $2.90T |
| 14 | 20 | Minnesota | $91,700 | $531B |
| 15 | 18 | Maryland | $90,700 | $545B |
| 16 | 14 | Virginia | $90,600 | $730B |
| 17 | 29 | Utah | $90,200 | $307B |
| 18 | 49 | Wyoming | $89,600 | $53B |
| 19 | 39 | New Hampshire | $89,100 | $126B |
| 20 | 44 | South Dakota | $87,200 | $84B |
| 21 | 41 | Hawaii | $86,200 | $117B |
| 22 | 31 | Nevada | $86,100 | $277B |
| 23 | 32 | Iowa | $85,500 | $274B |
| 24 | 9 | Georgia | $82,700 | $881B |
| 25 | 15 | Tennessee | $81,600 | $590B |
| 26 | 7 | Ohio | $81,400 | $923B |
| 27 | 33 | Kansas | $81,300 | $241B |
| 28 | 8 | North Carolina | $80,900 | $887B |
| 29 | 6 | Pennsylvania | $80,800 | $1.01T |
| 30 | 26 | Oregon | $80,200 | $341B |
| 31 | 22 | Wisconsin | $79,400 | $468B |
| 32 | 16 | Arizona | $78,900 | $584B |
| 33 | 19 | Indiana | $78,700 | $545B |
| 34 | 4 | Florida | $78,500 | $1.73T |
| 35 | 46 | Rhode Island | $75,500 | $82B |
| 36 | 21 | Missouri | $75,000 | $473B |
| 37 | 50 | Vermont | $74,600 | $48B |
| 38 | 27 | Louisiana | $74,000 | $340B |
| 39 | 43 | Maine | $73,200 | $103B |
| 40 | 45 | Montana | $72,400 | $82B |
| 41 | 13 | Michigan | $72,000 | $730B |
| 42 | 36 | New Mexico | $71,700 | $165B |
| 43 | 24 | South Carolina | $69,100 | $376B |
| 44 | 38 | Idaho | $67,700 | $136B |
| 45 | 30 | Oklahoma | $67,000 | $281B |
| 46 | 28 | Kentucky | $66,900 | $316B |
| 47 | 25 | Alabama | $66,100 | $343B |
| 48 | 35 | Arkansas | $64,200 | $193B |
| 49 | 40 | West Virginia | $61,700 | $117B |
| 50 | 37 | Mississippi | $56,100 | $153B |
First of all, I was speaking to the last administration and not to a specific state. But, GDP doesn’t really tell the story. Like with California, its success is a combination of factors that have really nothing to do with whom is in charge. the other problem with GDP is it doesn’t parse out Govt spending, which has more than doubled. And Brother, blue run states love to spend money. One of the things I find interesting is the left often leans on this argument and never do they mention in this context the other measures of success, such as homelessness, cost of living, housing affordability, crime and quality of public schools. Ironic isn’t it?
Lot’s of words hemming and hawing about this and that, but no data, I see.
Those are nice stories to tell, but not convincing without supporting data.
I thought we were looking at disasters, instead it’s just arm waving.
1.What do you recall about Simpson-Bowles?
It’s fairly widely publicized and has been covered in prior discussions. I don’t feel the need to re-post it. You could explain why I am wrong to question GDP as a measure of success by blue controlled states. You’re not addressing it because I am correct. The key issues to the Democratic Party: affordability, poor that are victims of crime, public education, homelessness, and income inequality. Many of these blue states and cities rank near the bottom on their supposed key issues. More importantly, they are facing serious and growing financial problems. They are like the govt version of latter generations of the wealthy, squandering huge financial advantages built by others.
It’s like you only see part of the economic picture. Adding more “low income housing”, it does not relieve demand pressure in the areas where affordability is the biggest problem.
First, the govt lacks the resources to build to meaningfully impact the market. Second, poor and low income households lack the downpayment and sufficient income ratios to qualify for more expensive homes. Remember our prior discussion, Home owners tend have key characteristic differences from renters. They have much higher levels of savings, general net worth and tend more often to be two person households.
It’s like saying building more sub $25k cars is going to relieve the price pressure on Ferraris and Porsches.
The other problem is one of replacement costs. Land in certain areas is at a premium and the cost to build has risen significantly over the last two decades. You couple that with higher property taxes and much higher borrowing rates, there simply is a floor to the cost of ownership that cannot be lowered past a certain point. It excludes portions of the population that lack certain levels of income.
I’m not saying no. I’m asking you to consider where the policies may or may not have worked and or what are the unintended consequences and tradeoffs. There is no reason to take action simply to take action. Some of the worst policy consequences have resulted because leaders decided that doing something was better than doing nothing.
I’m not really focused on income inequality. We’re discussing housing affordability. The truth is not every problem needs a govt solution or intervention or is even desirable. In truth, some of the housing problems now are just a function of govt policy and spending behavior that are coming home to roost. In addition it’s the result of lending restrictions that ended much of the easy borrowing in the past two decades.
These problems are complex and I don’t hold any clear answers. I suppose if anything, states and cities should look at what can be done region to region. In poor areas ripe for re development, those areas need to be safe from crime and violence and provide good quality schools that will draw in developers and then those willing to pay to live in this communities. States may want to follow Florida’s lead and look at easing property taxes on primary residences. Other states, regulatory environment, including density controls, is such that it dissuades building and economic development. It seems to me the states doing better with this issue are focused on public and private partnerships. For profit operations are considered partners rather than the enemy.
At the national level, I’m not sure what can be done. A substantial drop in interest rates would help to lower the cost of borrowing. But, it requires austerity measures. Of course, anything that is done that lowers home prices then decreases existing homeowners’ equity positions. So, there is that tradeoff as well. A strong enforcement of immigration policy would probably have the most positive impact on housing, wage and availability of public resources for the lower income tier.
More arm-waving.
You can write all those words but still don’t provide supporting data.
Provide some supporting data showing left policies lead to disaster.
I showed the exact opposite with US state-level GDP data.
4 of 5 top per capita GDP states are blue.
8 of 10 bottom per capita GDP states are red.
Want to be wealthier?
Your odds are better in a blue state.
So is your position that worsening income inequality doesn’t affect housing affordability?
Isn’t one of the top statements of dissatisfaction by people that they feel “they can’t get ahead” economically?
Perhaps if you want to become wealthier then you should look at GDP growth.
GDP Growth, 1998-2024
North Dakota 164% Utah 157 Idaho 144 Texas 141 Washington 134 Arizona 126 Colorado 117 California 115 Florida 113
DB2
Perhaps.
Maybe those states will one day catch up.
You haven’t explained why GDP is the relative measure of success between blue and red states. You also haven’t parsed out govt spending impact to GDP. More importantly, you haven’t explained the cause and effect relationship between blue administrations and the absolute levels of GDP. Look at this way, California is likely to, given its geographical size, position as a major port and diverse industries, remain highly ranked in terms of GDP. Does that really have much to do, except in the extremes, in terms of GDP output? What is true and relevant is that California ranks dead last in terms of economic opportunity and affordability, according to the latest US News and World Report. So if our discussion is focused on income inequality and affordability, which ranking seems more meaningful in judging blue state policies?
You present data that you really don’t even understand where it does or does not validate an argument. Interestingly, it’s usually someone doing so with GDP as the sole basis.
Again, you fail understand what GDP represents and what affects it.
I’m saying correcting for income inequality, isn’t likely to improve affordability. It may actually make property less affordable.
It’s the wrong place to focus, if the goal is addressing affordability for the broad general public.
I wonder how much of that is wages not keeping pace with extraordinarily movements in inflation driven by unprecedented spending at govt levels and continued erosion of purchasing power? On top of that, we have seen continued increases at the state and local level of all kinds of taxes that disproportionately hit lower income tax households. Chicago’s sales tax alone is now almost 11%.
You’re looking at the differential in wage and income rather than what are the major factors impacting affordability and eating away at where the poor and middle class get hit by these policies. What are you going do? Tax and print more money as a solution. All that does is push hard assets higher and further devalue the currency.
You tell us.
You made the claim.
You wrote:
Can you provide specific and quantitative data showing the disasters?
Where should we focus?
Provide specific examples showing why your suggestion can be successful.