This Weekend’s Unanswered Questions (111905)
Another installment in a nearly-regular series of mysteries and pseudo-mysteries (usually 3-4) this inquiring mind would like to have answers for (some links included may require free registration):
QUESTION 1: Why is a slowdown in home price growth considered “going south” or “bursting the bubble”?
This is really irritating (near end of article):
Economists: U.S. Housing Market Heading South
Nationally, prices should flatten out over the next one to two years, according to some analysts’ predictions. But they could head lower in some of the hottest areas of California, Florida and the Northeast.
“It’s not like it’s going to be a lousy market for housing next year,” said Frank Nothaft, chief economist at Freddie Mac. “It will just be normal as opposed to these abnormal levels we’ve seen these last couple years.”
That’s the point. Getting back to normal is NOT “heading south” (except possibly in the spots noted). Nobody thinks that perpetual annual double-digit increases in home prices would be a good thing. It almost seems that if the business press can’t have the bubble burst it’s hoping for, it will just make it up.
QUESTION 2: Is Ford in As Much Trouble as GM?
Maybe not, but it’s serious:
Ford to cut 4,000 jobs in North America
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F), facing a deepening financial crisis, said on Friday it plans to eliminate 4,000 salaried jobs, or 10 percent of its North American white-collar work force, as part of a larger restructuring plan.
A majority of the job cuts — announced to employees in an e-mail distributed by Mark Fields, president of Ford’s Americas business — will be made in the first quarter of 2006, spokesman Oscar Suris said.
The cuts will come through attrition, layoffs and the elimination of some agency and contract positions, Suris said.
They will be in addition to the 2,750 job losses already announced by the automaker this year,
Ford lost $284 million in the third quarter and its automotive division is in the red. Its North American vehicle operations have lost more than $1.4 billion before taxes so far this year.
….. Ford Chairman and Chief Executive Bill Ford Jr. said last month that the automaker will announce its long-awaited restructuring plan — dubbed “Way Forward” — in January.
He also warned that the plan would include “significant plant closings” to help slash costs in North America.
Fields and his team are expected to present Bill Ford with the restructuring plan in December.
Given the urgency, it seems that Ford has taken way too much time to get their plan together.
QUESTION 3: How many federal taxpayers will opt to pay in more than they have to?
It seems like a silly question, but if this particular tax option goes into effect, we’ll find out:
H.O.T. Tax
If liberals want to pay higher taxes, here’s a way they can.President George W. Bush’s bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform should propose a measure to assist a neglected segment of society: the avowedly under-taxed. The H.O.T. Tax, or Higher-rate Optional Tax, would give those who think their levies are too low the ability to pay the steeper tax bills they say they deserve. This is the truly compassionate thing to do.
The H.O.T. Tax would offer relief to powerful Democrats and wealthy liberals who cannot stand it when Republicans cut their taxes.
….. The IRS simply would add a small box to the 1040 tax form beside these words: “If you believe you should be taxed at a rate above that assigned to your income bracket, please indicate here the higher rate you prefer. Kindly calculate your tax liability, and send it in.â€
With that easy step, congressional liberals and residents of Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard no longer would have to keep the tax cuts conservatives keep throwing their way. Instead, they could send 50, 75, or even 99 percent of their incomes to Washington, so the GOP, Congress, and President Bush can spend it even better than they can.
Most people don’t know that this has been tried in several states. You can guess the results:
While this reform would increase taxpayer choice, it might generate little revenue. Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Virginia taxpayers already may pay above and beyond their usual top rates, though few do this. When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate if they wished. According to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, as of June 15, only 930 taxpayers opted to do so on their 2004 returns generating an extra $246,505. In 2002, 2,215 taxpayers paid the higher rate, yielding $341,829. Among 3,218,572 returns filed in 2003, only 1,488 (or 0.046 percent) paid the voluntary higher rate, adding $209,216 to state coffers.
Big whoop. You didn’t really expect most of those who think everyone’s taxes should be higher to voluntarily fork out more, did you?
So if a H.O.T. tax gets passed at the federal level, don’t expect the budget deficit to disappear. But it will be worth it if the sanctimonious “my taxes are too low” whines from the likes of Paul Newman, Barbra Streisand, and Bill Clinton go away. After all, with the H.O.T. tax, it’s put up or shut up.










If I remember right John Kerry is from Massachusetts and declined to pay higher state taxes when given the chance.
Comment by LargeBill — November 19, 2005 @ 1:18 pm
Question 1: Homeowners think that double-digit growth in their home equity is a good thing.
Question 2: The big three are suffering because of their zero-percent interest loans from a couple years ago. Remember the tremendous increase in new car purchases between 2001-2003? Well no one needs new cars. They *especially* don’t need/want new cars that consume copious amounts of gas. But I’m sure that trial lawyers are somehow at fault for this.
Question 3: The HOT is not a tax. It’s a gift. Taxes are levied to collect revenue for services provided by the government to the public. A gift (a la Webster’s) is something bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — November 19, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
#1, That was actually in the NRO column, but I was running long already. Very good point.
#2Q1–even existing homeowners know that if their values go up 10+% year after year that the next generation won’t be able to afford to own homes, or homes as we know them.
#2Q2–good point-they prematurely filled up the pipeline. What they should do is consider settling existing 0% loans for less than face value, which they adamantly refuse to do, if you come in and buy another venicle. It’s another band-aid in a sense, but it buys them time.
#2Q3–Of course it’s a gift. Undertaxed liberals should be willing to give it if they think the government is so underfunded.
Comment by TBlumer — November 19, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
As long as they come out way ahead when they cash out, present homeowners could care less about the next generation.
Car manufacturers make most of their money through their lending arms. When they offered the zero-interest loans, profits were still paltry.
Let’s let those who want to donate more to the government do just that, but let’s make sure that it goes towards some real utilitarian service, not another Ketchikan AK earmark.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — November 19, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
#4, I like the third idea. Make all “gifts” to the government conditional for specific purpose, just as a lot of people are suggesting donors to colleges do with their big gifts.
I’d love to see if that could pass legal muster.
What, you have a problem with a $231 million bridge that serves 5,000 people? :–>
Comment by TBlumer — November 19, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
Yeah, just a little frustrated when traditionally Democrat donor states like mine will fund Republican recipient states like AK, MS, etc. who then will complain about taxes.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — November 19, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
#6, see, there’s an example of a restricted gift: “I’ll pay more, but all funds have to be earmarked for people or projects in my state.”–”I want my own Bridge to Nowhere, Big Dig, etc.” :–>
Comment by TBlumer — November 19, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
I have no problem with the Big Dig. Our disproportionate tax receipts paid for it.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — November 19, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
#8, I was in MA earlier this year–Isn’t the correct description “are still paying” instead of “paid”?
Comment by TBlumer — November 19, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
I think the Turnpike Authority is footing the rest of the bill, so it’s in-state money.
Comment by Kevin Irwin — November 19, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
Given the layoffs, the Ford restructuring plan should be renamed “Way Forward Without You”
Comment by dave — November 19, 2005 @ 5:17 pm