Housing predator Blackstone says housing affordability is comparable to the 2007 housing bubble, but it isn't

Here:

Blackstone’s Joe Zidle calls homes almost as unaffordable as the 2007 peak. Yet, he believes a crash is unlikely due to a major difference: Most owners aren’t using their homes like an ATM.

That's a total smokescreen. Look! Over there! A deer!

Peak unaffordability was actually in 2014, when Blackstone was buying up all the inventory individual homebuyers couldn't afford.

Housing was actually more affordable during the 2007 housing bubble than it is today. The read then was 20.5 but in January 2022 it's more like 17.3, much worse. People who are paying these high prices are nuts. If it all blows up again you can bet firms like Blackstone will be waiting in the wings to acquire bargains you have to sell at a loss.

Meanwhile Blackstone today remains a huge buyer of commercial and multifamily rental real estate, especially student housing:

80 percent of the firm’s real estate holdings are in sectors with shorter-length leases that will allow Blackstone to benefit from rising rents . . ..

Tax cuts were real despite average refund in 2019 coming in $56 lower than last year, $50K earners saved $48 a week with lower withholding under tax reform

The IRS stats are in: Here’s how tax refunds look compared to last year

Your Paycheck Could Increase Very Soon -- Here’s How Much You Can Expect

 

WaPo and White House, but I repeat myself, lie about Obamacare enrollments by 100%

WaPo implies more than 20 million are enrolled in a story out today here:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama told Democrats that they are well positioned to defend the law, which has extended insurance to more than 20 million Americans.

Extended. As in offered. Here's the reality.

The Motley Fool said in November it checked in June and the number actually enrolled and paying was 10.4 million:

The fourth open enrollment period of Obamacare, Officially known as the Affordable Care Act, kicked off this past Tuesday, Nov. 1, and it's slated to run through the end of January. At last check in June 2016, 10.4 million people were enrolled through the various marketplace exchanges, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Congressional Budget Office has stuck by its forecast that roughly 10 million people will be enrolled and paying by Dec. 31, 2016.

A month earlier the number was 11.1 million, meaning some people who enrolled early in the year subsequently stopped paying and fell out:

As a reminder, 11.1 million people remained enrolled and paying customers as of March 31, 2016 per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . . .. 

Since last October it has been widely reported that the Obama Regime, soon to be history, has been predicting just 13.8 million sign-ups by the end of January 2017, which means Josh Earnest is nothing but a Stalinist stooge for the Regime, nothing but a salesman, and WaPo its willing accomplice in continuing to report the highly fanciful figure of 20 million.

Fake news, you see.

Obamacare has failed utterly and will be lucky to hit the 10 million mark this time around before President Trump ends the farce that it is.

Opportunity is a stern goddess to whom the only acceptable offering is cash

Seen here, quoting a diary from the Great Depression:

July, 1933: "Again and again during this depression it is driven home to me that opportunity is a stern goddess who passes up those who are unprepared with liquid capital."

The One Chart Which Best Explains The Reason For The Growth Of Income Inequality In The US

The chart comes from The Motley Fool, here, and has nothing to do per se with the subject of the current debate about income inequality occasioned by the US tour of French economist Thomas Piketty promoting his new book Capital in English translation.

But the chart offers a little appreciated explanation for why income inequality has grown in the United States: the tax code of the United States itself treats income unequally, giving preference to long term capital gains. Key here isn't just that rates increase progressively and are unequal, but that capital gains income is at all levels taxed unequally compared to ordinary income, at lower rates. Is it a surprise then that one form of income would tend to grow more than the other in order to take advantage of the lower rates?

Ordinary income has been taxed at extraordinarily high rates off and on since the First World War while long term capital gains have been taxed at comparatively much lower rates off and on just about as long, as a favor to the few who have historically been able to play in that sandbox. It shouldn't surprise us though that the half of the nation which over time has joined the investor class has benefited disproportionately from this arrangement.

It has been a principle of conservative economics from the time of Reagan that if you want less of something, tax it. Well that's what has happened to ordinary income, where wages have been stagnating for some time while gains from investments have soared. You push here, it comes out there. Ordinary income tax rates have come down and stayed down since Reagan's revolution, it is true, but the differential between ordinary income tax rates and long term capital gains taxes has remained, favoring the returns from capital.

Cullen Roche here takes the view that we should raise taxes on long term capital gains, especially for the top 0.1% where he believes most of the inequality shows up:

The solution, in my opinion, is simple and based on a relatively widespread misunderstanding. We currently tax “investment income” favorably. The rationale for this is that we want to incentivize “investment”. That makes sense except for the fact that very few of the people transacting on secondary markets or obtaining dividend payments are actually promoting investment. In fact, one could argue that dividends disincentivize firms from using profits in a more innovative manner. And transactions on secondary exchanges only finance investment in the case of secondary offerings. Otherwise, buying stocks and bonds is a simple allocation of savings and does not remotely resemble the financing of investment. Why these forms of income are tax advantaged makes very little sense in my view. So a higher tax rate on dividends and secondary market transactions seems to make a lot of sense in my view.

I beg to differ. The tax code as it stands is doubly offensive in that it not only favors one form of income over another but that it also discriminates against income as it grows. To make the tax code "fair", it should treat all income the same way. If we equalized all tax rates to 10% irrespective of level or source or time, there would be so much opportunity to make money in this country that yours truly, Cullen Roche and Thomas Piketty would all have something far better to do than write about this, and you something far better to do than read about it.