Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (12867)	8/21/2003 6:34:40 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

...the legislators know full well that the wealthy entrepreneur (those idle rich people you like to refer to generating all the jobs) would simply take ratchet down their income, take de minimus salary and the rest in dividends you are obviously not familiar with the meaning of terms like "idle rich". that term does not include entrepreneurs. in fact, you misunderstood my whole post. if you want to understand it, i suggest you take a basic course in macroeconomics.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (12867)	8/23/2003 12:55:24 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Hi MulhollandDrive, a loophole is no excuse not to properly tax beyond the limit on SS. It's discriminatory that they don't. Your post (12867) is a testimony and call for the return of the dividend tax. In a different post, Message 19232920 RE: "i think the record surge in ipo's and venture capital during the bubble" Price increases due to market conditions is acceptable. Market corrections are acceptable too. What's not acceptable is pricing pressures due to artificial supply problems contributed thru hoarding of homes by prop 13 quasi-investors. Anything like preferential treatment of quasi-RE-investors that negatively impacts the underpinnings of a Nasdaq workforce needs to be fixed. In your post below, Message 19232468 you seemingly confuse my position even though its been stated several times - read the post I wrote to David with my two paragraph definition of what I have issue with. Please grasp the concepts that the issue is quasi-multi-home-investors, not builders, not elderly. An abbreviated version is below. RE: "it's almost amusing to read lizzie's and amy j's posts about the inability to pay employees sufficiently such that the new hires can actually afford to live where they have chosen to site their businesses..." I'd appreciate if you separate my posts & position from other posters who may have a different opinion, and assume me to be respectfully serious on my content. I'd also appreciate if you could write sincere posts without jabs. As a lead, have you any thoughts on how many owners have multiple homes in the Bay Area? Do you have statistics on how many homes are consumed by quasi-investors taking advantage of prop 13? How many of these homes could be freed up and available to others? Is the number sufficient to increase supply and reduce pricing pressures? NCGs were asking more than $100k (wages, not cost), when you include bonuses. If you believe this is common, as oppose to unusual headline news, you may have not seen the headline news by CNN about Chelsea's $100k starting salary? Any upward pressures that steals from their salaries, such as inflated mortgages due to supply constraints in part contributed by prop 13's quasi-investor hoarding phenomenon, essentially steals from the Nasdaq workforce, and this is not healthy for them, nor Nasdaq investors, nor this country. Regarding your commentary about moving to the midwest. I think you'll know that Calif gets 1/3 of all VC capital for innovations. Again, market adjustments are fine. Artificially ones that provide preferential treatment to one class over another, that has some potential to negatively impact Nasdaq, isn't. RE: "idle rich entrepreneurs" Are you biased against entrepreneurs? Regards, Amy J not to be confused with builders nor elderly, as you have incorrectly done.