"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[Gadagirl]

QUOTE=valhalla360;3490964]Historically, it was impractical except in rare situations (toll roads, toll bridges) to operate a private road system. With modern technology, charging per mile for each road used is now technologically viable and would result in a much more efficient way to build and maintain the road network.[/QUOTE]

This is probably anecdotally an opinoin of mine for my local area (DC metro, eastern corridor I95) So as an example of public/private roads we (taxpayers) helped fund a private companies construction of High Occupancy Lanes (HOV)

Originally no tolls were involved. It encouraged car pooling. Was fair at first, pack your car with 3 or more commuters (car pool) then you had access to less trafficked lanes. Drive alone, tough nuts, sit in over crowded lanes for 2 hour commute.

Then the private for profit company got involved. So anybody can drive now in the "express lanes" formally "HOV lames" because of the tecnology of easily being able to pay tolls with your EZpass attached to your wind shield. They eliminated any incentive to car pool and adjusted the rate of tolls based on the volume of traffic at the time you were traveling. If you can afford the price spikes during rush hour that can ammount to upwards of +$50 to travel 20-30 miles then hell yay! I'm jumping in that lane.

But if you have to commute 5-6 days a week for even a mediocre salary then it makes no sense. But keep in mind that people on mediocre salaries don't live in the city because it's too expensive. So they live away where it's more affordable. And commute. So they get to spend upwards of 3-5 hours sitting in traffic each day on a commute.

And businesses are wringing tbeir hands wondering why people won't work for them for $15 an hour with sign on bonusses included. Answer, it's not just worth it. In fact some are striking out and goiing into buisness for them selves locally. Others moving. Others paying down debts, and saving.

During covid-19 people paid down debt, created savings and are sitting on it. America GDP depends on a whopping 70% of consumer spending. Guess what? A lot of Americans decided to stop spending and just save. Corpoations did the same. Buying back their own stocks.

So my personal anecdotal opinion on the overall topic is "Times, they are changing" and everyone fears change to a certain degree and it's causing much angst.

Oh, the company that profits is based in Australia so it's not an American corporate thing, it is global.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The wealth of the poor, is NOT going down, and is definitely not the fault of the "rich" they are poor.

You are born penniless.

Some people managed to change that.

Amazon, and Walmart don't "steal" from me by providing quality products at the lowest price.

The only kleptocracy I see is the government taxing ALL workers (productive), and giving that money to the politically connected to remain in power.

Zuckerberg buying a new yacht does NOT make me poor, in fact it could be argued he made me richer by increasing demand for products I make which increases the market price.

The wealth of each person (including poor) is the total goods, and services divided by demand.

If you are poor, look at how much did YOU produce?

I have yet to have a single person tell me "I produced a billion dollars of consumer goods, and I'm still poor".

You either spent a billion dollars, or you are lying.

Clearly you have no concept of poverty and poverty traps , people who can’t get an education , can’t escape crime , can’t get medical attention . People simply by accident of birth are virtually condemned to life long poverty.

Meanwhile the rich , who have long since stopped being productive ( as it’s only now their money making money ) get richer and richer

It’s not sustainable and history shows us that revolution usually sorts this out ( for a while ) ultimately humans simply take what they can’t get.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Average rent is $900 a month here.

But good numbers, thanks.

If I buy a $150,000 slip at a Dockuminium i also have to pay several hundred a month "operating expenses", which includes a share of the property taxes.

The big draw here is the right to decide on the marina operating rules including liveaboard.

At fixing fees to cost instead of profits.

Every time I've looked into Dockuminiums, the numbers just never made sense. There might be situations where it can be a financial positive.

7.2% return on $150k will cover the $900/month (presumably including operating expenses) and you aren't responsible for anything. I've typically seen "operating expenses" of roughly 50% of the slip price, so 3.6% return will cover the property portion of the slip rental.

Yes, you get a say in operating rules (but only a say not the final word) but you sacrifice the option to leave without strings attached. We've never had an issue finding a liveaboard slip at a reasonable price but we are flexible.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

QUOTE=valhalla360;3490964]Historically, it was impractical except in rare situations (toll roads, toll bridges) to operate a private road system. With modern technology, charging per mile for each road used is now technologically viable and would result in a much more efficient way to build and maintain the road network.

This is probably anecdotally an opinoin of mine for my local area (DC metro, eastern corridor I95) So as an example of public/private roads we (taxpayers) helped fund a private companies construction of High Occupancy Lanes (HOV)

Originally no tolls were involved. It encouraged car pooling. Was fair at first, pack your car with 3 or more commuters (car pool) then you had access to less trafficked lanes. Drive alone, tough nuts, sit in over crowded lanes for 2 hour commute.

Then the private for profit company got involved. So anybody can drive now in the "express lanes" formally "HOV lames" because of the tecnology of easily being able to pay tolls with your EZpass attached to your wind shield. They eliminated any incentive to car pool and adjusted the rate of tolls based on the volume of traffic at the time you were traveling. If you can afford the price spikes during rush hour that can ammount to upwards of +$50 to travel 20-30 miles then hell yay! I'm jumping in that lane.

But if you have to commute 5-6 days a week for even a mediocre salary then it makes no sense. But keep in mind that people on mediocre salaries don't live in the city because it's too expensive. So they live away where it's more affordable. And commute. So they get to spend upwards of 3-5 hours sitting in traffic each day on a commute.

And businesses are wringing tbeir hands wondering why people won't work for them for $15 an hour with sign on bonusses included. Answer, it's not just worth it. In fact some are striking out and goiing into buisness for them selves locally. Others moving. Others paying down debts, and saving.

During covid-19 people paid down debt, created savings and are sitting on it. America GDP depends on a whopping 70% of consumer spending. Guess what? A lot of Americans decided to stop spending and just save. Corpoations did the same. Buying back their own stocks.

So my personal anecdotal opinion on the overall topic is "Times, they are changing" and everyone fears change to a certain degree and it's causing much angst.

Oh, the company that profits is based in Australia so it's not an American corporate thing, it is global.[/QUOTE]

If the govt steps back, pay and home location will sort itself out. When the rich can't get labor, hourly wages in prime areas will go up and some will move to where the labor is because it's cheaper. When the govt tries to implement rules, it usually distorts the markets and unexpected problems arise.

Businesses are wringing their hands because the govt is manipulating the market...Of course people won't take $15/hr jobs when the govt is giving them $15/hr not to work. Now that is sorting itself out but it will take time.

In real dollars, savings is up but inflation is eating into the value of that savings. So much of this Covid impacts are govt induced not capitalism . For a short term while people couldn't go out and work, it made sense (to a degree), but long term, it's not sustainable for the govt to keep handing out free money.

[goboatingnow]

Then the private for profit company got involved. So anybody can drive now in the "express lanes" formally "HOV lames" because of the tecnology of easily being able to pay tolls with your EZpass attached to your wind shield. They eliminated any incentive to car pool and adjusted the rate of tolls based on the volume of traffic at the time you were traveling. If you can afford the price spikes during rush hour that can ammount to upwards of +$50 to travel 20-30 miles then hell yay! I'm jumping in that lane.

Unfortunately this is what happens when you privatise a monopoly , you get a private rather then a state monopoly. While a state , or national monopoly may at least have to operate to a public policy , the private one has no such compunction.

This is a constant dilemma , fixed resources in private hands leads to exploitation , it’s inevitable. There must be significant competition for private ownerships to work.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Clearly you have no concept of poverty and poverty traps , people who can’t get an education , can’t escape crime , can’t get medical attention . People simply by accident of birth are virtually condemned to life long poverty.

Meanwhile the rich , who have long since stopped being productive ( as it’s only now their money making money ) get richer and richer

It’s not sustainable and history shows us that revolution usually sorts this out ( for a while ) ultimately humans simply take what they can’t get.

Ironically, much of the problem is tied to govt intervention (decidedly not capitalism) creating a cycle of dependency on govt programs that penalize those who try to break out and encourage them to rely on the govt....eventually, they learn the lesson and stop trying to get out of poverty and they learn to abuse those programs making it even worse.

If you think the rich who have been productive all their lives and are now risking their capital on businesses that create jobs is not being productive while paying the bulk of the taxes for those programs...well not much to discuss.

I do agree that there is a level of frustration among those who have been manipulated...unfortunately, they are being manipulated into believing the wrong people are to blame for their position.

[Pelagic]

Everyone goes on about FAIR Taxation but few support the idea of a Flat Tax.


It seems logical to me that a Chairman/CEO of a company would garner more business expenses than someone working in a factory and that those be used as legitimate deductions.

Complicated subject obviously easy to abuse

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...tax-them-more/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Yes and i admire all those people who have been abandoning CA and NY for places with less taxes like Texas and FL. It must be embarrassing too that so many are famous giys like Joe Rogan, etc.

Admiration, indeed. Yeah, and isn't it great that the rich have the resources to bob and weave to duck their tax burden? They love the high tax states when they are takers (like world class schools for them and their employees), but once they have taken, they want to skedaddle off to a fenced in enclave in a low/no tax state so that the people behind them can't possibly benefit from what they benefitted from. Class act.

And, isn't it great that we have figured out how to tax low income people so that they can't ever dodge? We hit them with sales taxes, excise taxes, govt user fees, road tolls, Medicare, FICA, indirect real estate taxes. Pretty much no matter where they might go (if they can afford to move), the taxes are the same.

This is illuminating. You guys really do want to crush the bottom half of the population. You want to run off with your gains and leave them to social Darwinism. It is stunning. While I did say earlier that I don't assume affluent people are fundamentally evil or immoral, you are mounting an argument I was wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Ironically, much of the problem is tied to govt intervention (decidedly not capitalism) creating a cycle of dependency on govt programs that penalize those who try to break out and encourage them to rely on the govt....eventually, they learn the lesson and stop trying to get out of poverty and they learn to abuse those programs making it even worse.

If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on, let alone climb out of poverty, why would poor people choose to work?

If you think the rich who have been productive all their lives and are now risking their capital on businesses that create jobs is not being productive while paying the bulk of the taxes for those programs...well not much to discuss.

Being rich doesn't necessarily mean someone's been productive. And where they park their money to earn interest doesn't always create jobs.

[Bycrick]

A flat tax is one of those simple, utopian ideas that has no chance of ever coming about. At the most cynical level, no government is ever going to willingly give up the ability to help their "friends," punish their "enemies" or fund their pet projects, whether they’re pyramids, palaces at Versailles, or electric cars. There’s no end to "good causes" to fund, and a surplus of people who think they’re being treated unfairly.

All tax loopholes benefit somebody. Tax-free municipal bonds shelter a lot of potential tax tax revenue from the feds. Oh, those nasty, coupon clipping rich people. But it means that the states, municipalities and all the other quasi-government entities can pay below market interest on what they borrow. A flat tax collects money at the federal level while penalizing the states and local borrowers.

Get rid of the interest deduction for house mortgages ? You’d collect lots of money, but then what about the "critical lack of affordable housing" after it’s been made more expensive?

A flat tax doesn’t reduce or increase overall taxation, it just moves it around.

As for the complaining about the poor deserving what they get, that’s at least partially true. If you live in a city with lousy, unsafe schools, you can move someplace, or you can get involved in the school politics and vote out the corrupt activists who don’t teach your kids what they need to be something other than poor. If you’re short of money this week, you don’t get a paycheck loan at high interest. When 50% of the people in the US can’t cover a $400 emergency, that’s the fault of poor choices, not an evil system.

[Bycrick]

What testersails seems to want is a modern form of serfdom. If I live in a high -tax state, and all along pay taxes for services hooefully received, I’m somehow a tax dodger when I move out after I no longer need the services. I’m obviously supposed to be chained to my house after I’ve retired so I can continue to pay school taxes. That sounds a touch medieval to me.

[Bycrick]

What testersails seems to want is a modern form of serfdom. If I live in a high -tax state, and all along pay taxes for services hooefully received, I’m somehow a tax dodger when I move out after I no longer need the services. I’m obviously supposed to be chained to my house after I’ve retired so I can continue to pay school taxes. That sounds a touch medieval to me.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Everyone goes on about FAIR Taxation but few support the idea of a Flat Tax.

Not a direct response, but in a thread of maybe a year ago, we discussed taxation in the first world, and which countries were considered the most socially successful, livable, happiest, and one thing jumped out at me: regardless of the right/left leanings of the country, the 'best' countries collected 30+% of GDP in taxes, and the less socially successful countries collected less. It makes it clear to me that there is a pretty reliable estimate for how much of GDP a first world country needs to collect in taxes to maintain a healthy and well-functioning country. The how (flat, progressive, sales) doesn't matter much.

It seems logical to me that a Chairman/CEO of a company would garner more business expenses than someone working in a factory and that those be used as legitimate deductions.

The smallest of small-business people know all the lovely deductions that kick in: home office, vehicle or at least mileage, etc etc. And those deductions just multiply the bigger the company or the more 'corner' the office. How many CF threads from people hoping to write off their boats? How about... a flat tax with a cap on per-person deductions?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sorry, guess I'm not as smart as you. I don't follow this at all ... unless you're suggesting religious organizations should also be taxed like other organizations, then I agree. But my comment wasn't selective. It was based analysis from economists and financial people, including, as I said, Warren Buffet himself.

Definitely not smarter than you Mike and my post was lazy.

Point I was trying to make is that when people quote in terms of absolutes, it just annoys me.

Many people con the system, both rich and poor and when those are taken as the norm, it accomplishes nothing but added spin and polarity

Yes, Warren Buffet has very good ideas of what is fair and equitable and applies that to himself in his own way.

Yet, because he doesn't cater to political rhetoric, he is castigated by the media as a tax dodger

https://observer.com/2020/05/warren-...older-meeting/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

As for the complaining about the poor deserving what they get, that’s at least partially true. If you live in a city with lousy, unsafe schools, you can move someplace, or you can get involved in the school politics and vote out the corrupt activists who don’t teach your kids what they need to be something other than poor. If you’re short of money this week, you don’t get a paycheck loan at high interest. When 50% of the people in the US can’t cover a $400 emergency, that’s the fault of poor choices, not an evil system.

Never sure whether to laugh or cry when affluent, privileged people tell the poor that everything is their fault and they could change it if weren't so lazy. You know, so, so little about the reality of living poor, shame on you for telling them how their lives are a mess because them.

Do you guys really believe these vicious and horrible things you say or do you just make this stuff up to upset people on forums who espouse some sense and compassion?