Modern redlining. Still insidious.

Black couple met with appraiser to appraise their home for selling and he came back with just under $1 million. Had a White couple pose as owners, same neighborhood, same house, 2nd appraiser, and the appraisal jumped to $1.45 million. Must be the new paint job.
The coupled sued the appraisers and won a settlement.

I am sure that is not an isolated case. Millions of sales and appraisals data confirmed that nationwide, and that is pointed in the article. And this was obviously not a bad neighborhood at those prices.

Really hard to say we don’t have built in racism lingering today. “Slavery ended150 years ago” is not the issue folks.

120 thoughts on “Modern redlining. Still insidious.

  1. “Really hard to say we don’t have built in racism lingering today. ”

    “But But But. Things are so much better now than in the 50’s.” That will be the argument. “It is isolated. It isn’t real. It is not what you think.” The same old BS from the same old people. Just wait and see what the other side of the discussion has to say.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “Really hard to say we don’t have built in racism lingering today.”

    Not at all hard to say. Why? Because the story commits a classic correlation/causation fallacy. That is, the statistics on which the allegation of structural racism is based may be true, but they are insufficient to prove anything.

    Other data needed to support the allegation might include detailed psychological assessments of the appraisers to determine state of mind and bias, or market analyses to determine whether economic factors might account for the appraisal disparities.


    1. Sure. Have a report on my desk in the morning.

      A half million difference is hard to ignore. That, a a settlement are pretty good indicators that there was racial redlining, 2020 style. You don’t settle of you have a strong case. You fight it. And the appraisers didn’t do that.

      Plus the massive data bank of millions of home show a marked disparity, even when corrected for location, house, incomes, etc.

      How do think you would feel if a Black appraiser lowballed your home, and a second one, thinking you were a Black homeowner, gave you 50% boost.

      Math error? Hardly.

      All your tap dancing does not change anything.


      Liked by 2 people

    2. Bullshit.
      Numbers do not lie. These are not small differences.

      When are you people going to man up and face the truth – discrimination against non-White people is real and it happens all the time.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “When are you people going to man up and face the truth – discrimination against non-White people is real and it happens all the time.”

        No problem. Discrimination against non-White people is real and it happens all the time.

        My beef is that the story doesn’t prove that. Also, I do not believe that discrimination is structural or systemic.


        1. Definitions. If racism, subtle or not, is apparent in commercial transactions, as this was, then it is hard to discount.

          Home ownership, infant mortality, maternal mortality, life span, incarceration rates and lengths for the same crimes…

          Yes there are some assholes burning crosses and place nooses. That’s life. But we still live separately, rich or poor.

          And if middle class Black neighborhoods are lowballed because Whites don’t want to live near them, and the mortgage rates, appraisals, etc.reflect that, that is systemic racism staring you in the face.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. I am sincere in my belief that claims of structural and systemic racism are intellectually fraudulent. The source story for this thread is evidence of that.


  3. This story conflates 2 very different things.

    An appraisal done for a black couple, then redone with a white couple posing as the owners.

    Then appraisals of similar homes in different neighborhoods with different racial makeups.

    The first, and the one the suit was based on is, indeed, suspicious. The value should be the same no matter who occupies the home.

    But differing appraisals for similar structures in different neighborhoods is simple market truth.

    A real estate appraisal is done using three methods, one of which is useful for insuring property, another serves no purpose, but the one banks base mortgage values on, and thus the one that controls sales prices, is comparable sales.

    Sale prices of homes of similar size and features which recently changed hands from that neighborhood or similar, nearby neighborhoods, are what the banks are interested in.

    It is simply true that buyers, regardless of race, are willing to pay more to live in a predominantly White neighborhood. That’s not the bank’s fault, it’s not the appraiser’s fault, it’s not the realtor’s fault.

    My former Black neighbor was willing to pay more for an equal house in our neighborhood than in a predominantly Black neighborhood. Does that make him a racist, or just a dad concerned about the safety and education of his children?

    The marketplace is not racist, it is simply reality.


    1. Another comparative sales issue is nearby foreclosures or short sales. My next door neighbor bought his house at a bargain due to short sale but that sale affected the values of similar homes for 10 miles around. Anyhow, story wise, it is often less expensive in many cases for businesses to settle lawsuits like this than fight. The monetary settlement wasnt disclosed but the story alludes to not much since the principle of the matter was more important. Yeah, yeah watch a few videos and get back to business in the real world.


      1. You are so sweet. I’ll do just that. 🙄

        Ok, I thought better of my snark.

        Yes there are a multitude of factors that determine home value. And this case was so egregious and obviously based on race that the suit was assuredly on principle. This was not a case of a buyer/realtor lowballing, but rather an appraiser. So if the new, realistic appraisal set the sale price, then damages were minimal.

        The point of that example was to highlight the problem of Black homeowners still being “steered”, if not illegally, then certainly unethically. And as the data showed it has led to still keeping the Blacks on “reservations”. These are not urban, ghetto gangbangers, but working Americans we still can’t reconcile with.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. So the other data points of millions of homes over decades is not your cup of tea.

            So why would an appraiser, not a realtor, lowball the Black owned home in an affluent suburb of Houston. There is no advantage to him. Banks rely on this, which tells me that we need to back to the banks and see if what happened was acceptable. What is keeping the Black homes significantly lower. Middle class and up are not gangbangers.

            Perception that thugs or not, Blacks are just not worth that much. Not every case, every person and every situation. But enough to show a pattern that for all intents and purposes has lingered since the 70’s despite legal changes.

            What happened in the article was de facto red lining which made absolutely no sense except for race. And redlining was outlawed a few decades ago.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. Nice and detailed and totally beside the point.

      Comparative studies corrected for location also.

      But if, as you stipulate, Black middle and Upper middle class homeowners are downgraded regularly, you don’t see that as a problem?

      Whites don’t want Black neighbors, so the value is set accordingly. These folks are Americans. They are not gangbangers or welfare queens. We haven’t yet gotten past skin color.

      Don, this is exactly what systemic racism is all about.

      It’s not cross burnings, it the daily little affronts endured by Blacks. These should have been resolved a century ago if we were not practicing apartheid, legally and through terror.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You missed the point again.

        When Black families have the means to do so, they move to White neighborhoods.

        The Market doesn’t lie.

        People of all races perceive White neighborhoods as safer and more desirable places to raise children, and that gives those properties a higher value.

        With the recent social justice foolishness excusing Black youths attacking White and Asian people simply for being available, I expect that difference in the desirability of neighborhoods to increase.

        This is the country you created, own it.


          1. “You.”

            So, you have no cite to support your incendiary claim? No evidence of any kind. You just made up the “fact” that SOMEBODY was excusing this racist violence when nobody has done that.

            But I get it – in your mind “explaining” is no different than “excusing?” And people have attempted to explain criminal behavior and endemic hopeless poverty is frequently cited. So that is “excusing.”

            In case you have not noticed, YOU are “excusing” these crimes just as much as I am. Your explanation – lack of sound families. So “explaining” and “excusing” are the same when I do it, but they are not the same when you do it?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Sound families”

            Makes sense. So if a family is poor, the housing is often pretty limited to rough areas. But, that is where to jobs are unless long commutes are possible.

            Dod gets picked up by cops for smoking a joint (a few years back). He loses his job because he is in jail, bail is unaffordable. Mom keeps working as a maid, but not enough to afford daycare or even the rent.

            That is how “sound” families end up broken. Not all, but enough to make the problem worse.

            There is a big gap between your Black professional and welfare queens. The working classes and lower middle fill those. And many are the classic “one paycheck from disaster” due to the high costs of living, cars, healthcare, daycare, etc. yet, the best jobs are often surrounded by high cost housing.

            And those areas that have affordable housing in low income neighborhoods, their schools are invariably bad.

            Yes, some rise above this. Admirable, but we read about them because they are the exception.

            That is reality. Now we can address this many ways, but we can’t ignore it anymore. That is the crux of BLM.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. “This is the country you created, own it.”

          I did not know you were not American. Sorry, I thought you were part of the electorate.

          Nobody is excusing violent crime. Sure there are screwups in our dilapidated justice system, but that is what conservatives certainly helped create. No funding for adequate representation, more courts, higher quality policing, mental health, relying on private for profit prisons. Your own state, Louisiana, is the poster child for people languishing in overcrowded jails because the Public Defenders are very understaffed.

          Bottom line, Don, this issue has a lot of parents…including you. As you say, “own it” and now let’s try to resolve it.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I’ve been trying to resolve it for 40 years, but Libertarians have never held power. Republicans never had the numbers to repeal the disastrous programs Democrats put in place.

            People do not respond to your good intentions, they respond to the incentives you put before them.

            Since 1964, your incentives have been to forsake the duties that come with family in favor instant gratification of desires. That also removes the rewards that come from family down the road, but if you never get down the road…

            With the marriage destroyed, the self-reliance and mutual support of a two parent arrangement and the associated extended families which were a bulwark against poverty are gone with it and all the ills of poverty are magnified. Now hardship divides people instead of bringing them together.

            Then, with the discipline that comes from a strong father figure lost, you set out to destroy accountability in schools and in the juvenile justice system, and as those delinquents aged, you made prisons training academies for worse thugs, then turned them loose.

            For 40 years I’ve been screaming stop and trying to point out the adverse incentives that arose from the Great Society and just got called greedy even though the harm done by taxing me to pay for it was minimal compared to the harm done to the beneficiaries of your charity with my money.

            So, tell me which policies I advocated were passed into law that contributed?

            Was it when I said to let the market rule on wages?

            Was it when I suggested a 3 year lifetime maximum on means tested government assistance?

            How about passing the FairTax so everyone had skin in the game on government spending?

            What are my legislative successes that made this mess?

            Sorry, it’s all you.


          2. All me.

            You did not vote?

            The market did rule on wages. We stayed at $7/hr for decades. And that is what many were paid. What were the market incentives to raise wages people could actually survive on?

            Government assistance would benefit from changes, as happened in 1990’s. They are mostly subsistence level. Which on the surface seems fine until you see families living in cars. Or a medical disaster.

            Fair tax? The actual rate of 30% won’t cover State taxes, which would pop up by sales tax revenues since the income taxes and IRS are gone. Some estimates put the tax being effectively north of 40-45%. Even higher.

            Skin in the game is good. And everyone does it. Even illegal workers. 15% FICA. So you can bury that assertion.

            Incentives? A capitalist economy should provide wealth to the brilliant innovators. No problem. But the incentive at the low end is trying to keep from living in the streets. Problem.

            You are so afraid that someone, somewhere may get an undeserved dollar. My advice is don’t look at our defense industry, or Big Agra, Big Pharma, etc. Not only is that sucking that money from you, but it kind of sets the tone that really got Trump in office. The elites of both parties were stiffing the working classes was a big selling point. “Just look how rich and connected have screwed you over”. (Just to dispense with pointless debate, yes there were other attractive issues. Abortion judges for one biggie, immigration, Mexican rapists, etc.)

            If you want to brag about legislative success, try seeing how many issues were even brought in Republican administrations or Congress. Or both.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You have an unparalleled ability to miss points.

            The harm of the welfare system isn’t what it costs me(though that is wrong) it is the adverse incentive presented to those who receive it.

            Men will be no better than women require. If they can be irresponsible druggies who won’t support a family and still get laid, that is who you will get.

            Teenage girls don’t like their mother’s rules, if you offer them their own place free of their mother’s rules in return for early pregnancy, well, there are plenty of irresponsible young men eager to help.

            No matter what you want people to do, most will follow the incentives you place before them.

            The only way to prevent that is to remove the incentives. There wouldn’t be so many poor to care for if you weren’t paying people to make them.

            FICA doesn’t mean a thing. It all goes to Social Security which is automatic (until it crashes) Half the population has no skin in the game for discretionary spending. Half the population sees government spending as “free.” It isn’t, The cost of that government is embedded in the price of everything you buy.

            The FairTax would put that price tag on every receipt you get. It doesn’t cost anyone anything more, it just makes the part of the prices you pay that goes to government visible.

            I didn’t brag about legislative successes, I pointed out that we have none. Your side has gotten its way since I was born, at most the GOP has had a chance to slow it down but it has never reversed anything. And Libertarians haven’t been listened to at all. We have the solution to the drug problem, but no one listens.

            All of the programs we live under are Democrat legislative successes. This is your mess.


          4. ” If they can be irresponsible druggies who won’t support a family and still get laid, that is who you will get.”

            You do know that Boebert’s 17 year old son just knocked up his teenage girlfriend?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. There is a problem of celebrities having crappy marriages. They are reported in scandal sheets. But at that level you can hide, rehab, dry out and still carry on.

            But like it or not they are the elite. So if they can do it…

            Sure, this is just a single brick in the wall of issues.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. So?

            Are the families dealing with it without resorting to government support?

            Is he going to marry and support her?

            What was there previous relationship?

            I don’t know enough to make any judgment and if I did, it would have no bearing on the general incentive.


          7. “Is he going to marry and support her?”

            I dunno. She is 15. Maybe they can move to one of those hillbilly states you admire so much where it is legal for children to marry?

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Teenagers getting pregnant is hardly new.

            How it is handled by the families makes a difference, and I don’t know the circumstances well enough to dictate the right course.


          9. Boebert is touting the high teen pregnancy rates in rural parts of the country as being a good thing. I am of the opinion that it is better to try and PREVENT teen pregnancy than to tout is as good.


          10. We have managed to elect some loonies.

            I theorize that to run for national office today you have to independently wealthy, or loony, or both.

            The loonies were elected because they were not Democrats. Kinda telling about Republican candidate pool, no?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Kinda telling about Republican candidate pool, no?”

            So far not one, not two, but three new MAGA members of Congress have been busted for fabricating their resumés. They ought to be expelled from Congress but MAGA cares little for the truth, decency or ethics. For the record they are . . .

            George Santos (R-N.Y.)
            Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.)
            Rep. Andrew Ogles (R-Tenn.)

            Jennifer Rubin describes their lies here where she leads off by saying . . .

            “It keeps happening. Republicans are no longer just lying about the world around them — about climate change or vaccines or voter fraud — they’re increasingly lying about themselves.”


            Liked by 2 people

          12. “Again, I don’t know what arrangements the families are making, but so long as they deal with it themselves it is none of my business.”

            The real point is that you support a party that wants to keep young people ignorant. A party in which Ms Boebert is a leading figure. Ms. Boebert has been a vocal opponent of the “leftist” idea of age appropriate sex education. Last week at CPAC she demanded that schools with comprehensive sex education lose their funding. It is Karma knocking when here 17-year old child knocks up a 15-year old child presumably out of sheer ignorance. Or maybe this sort of ignorance and irresponsibility is hereditary. Boerbert – a champion of family values and a welfare princess – the state paid for her upkeep as a child – had her first child out-of-wedlock when she was in high school. She later married a fellow who secretly drew big checks “consulting” with natural gas companies WHILE his wife served on the House Natural Resources Committee. He is an expert on natural gas – he used it in his restaurant. And oh yeah, he is a now a convicted sex offender – just a little indecent exposure in a bowling alley. Good fun!

            But, but, but BLM!

            Liked by 2 people

          13. “She later married a fellow who secretly drew big checks “consulting” with natural gas companies WHILE his wife served on the House Natural Resources Committee. He is an expert on natural gas – he used it in his restaurant. And oh yeah, he is a now a convicted sex offender – just a little indecent exposure in a bowling alley”

            Where is his laptop! Alarm, alarm. You don’t really think he got that job because of Boebert’s status as a Congresswoman? Do you? 😇😇😇

            Liked by 2 people

          14. “ Colorado has a Romeo and Juliet law (also called “the close-in-age exemption” to statutory rape). Under this exception:

            A. minors under 15 may have consensual sex with partners who are less than four years older, and

            B. minors age 15 or 16 may have consensual sex with partners who are less than 10 years older.”


            So a 25 year old man with a smooth line could seduce a 15 year in CO and it just fine.

            Don, approved raping of 15 year olds is not your business?
            That law is beyond ludicrous.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. I am not really sure that age of consent laws are based in reality.

            SOME 15 year old girls are mature enough to make their on sexual choices.

            I would say that pretty much all 17 year olds are.

            There is nothing magical about 18.


          16. Boy are you rationalizing. You have said so many time that protecting children is a most important job. You cannot expect a child to give consent for breast reduction for a future sex change would you? You excoriate the few cases of parental approval.

            Sorry, but a 15 year girl is a child. Small boobs, if a mistake, may be a poor choice, but reversible. Bearing a child by a 15 year old will affect her for a long time, affect her education, income and, to a degree, health because pregnancy and childbirth are fraught with risks for the mother.

            This is similar to those religious sects that marry off children to older men, but more egregious because Boebert is bragging about it.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. …” I pointed out that we have none.

            And have you asked yourself why that is? How about the alternatives offered do not provide what is needed in a social safety net to support those who can’t. Or better yet, they just don’t give a crap. Cut taxes for corps and billionaires, hope things trickle down (and they NEVER have) and then say, “It’s all the Democrats fault. Because we don’t know how to legislate.”

            Instead of finger pointing, provide a solution. It’s the same with immigration. No solutions, just it is Biden’s policies that is causing what has been happening at the border for decades.

            “And Libertarians haven’t been listened to at all.” Gee I wonder why?

            Liked by 1 person

          18. When you’re deep in a hole, first stop digging.

            We can’t cut out the welfare state all at once because it has created its own need, but we need to phase it out.

            Prior to the welfare state, out of wedlock births were rare enough for charity, particularly churches, to deal with.

            Yes, it was hard on the girls, but then that is how you become an object lesson for others. That’s why the need was rare.

            But we have provided incentives favoring out of wedlock births and removed disincentives.

            It is no surprise there are now too many for charity to deal with.

            But to restore the balance, it is necessary that the safety net be LESS appealing.

            Harsh as that is, it is the only road back from our current death spiral.


          19. “. . . the welfare state . . . blah blah blah”

            What millenium do you live in?

            The days of “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks buying T-Bone steaks with food stamps” are long gone.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Welfare queens were always the exception,

            The problem is not the gross abusers, it is the large number of matriarchal single parent familes.


          21. You must know millions of poor people.

            You sure know their stories. At least the crappy ones.

            People do not get rich on assistance. They barely survive and if anything unforeseen happens they are on the street.

            So the incentives to get laid and pad the rolls might be true for some. It seems for everyone for you.

            As I have posted many time the healthy capitalist economy needs (for the present time) healthy, educated and somewhat secure as far as decent housing labor force.

            Reaching that is incentive for most folks.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. Is the current system providing those educated and motivated workers?

            Or are we doing the same thing harder and expecting different results?

            Whatever the answer, the status quo is your creation, not mine.


          23. Blame game. But if it floats your boat, I can, unlike some on the right, take it.

            I know I said it too. My bad.

            Of course the current system sucks. That’s the problem. Getting the nation back on track doesn’t mean going backwards.

            But if the mantra on the right is that taxes are theft, the transition is pretty hard.

            Look how long it took to get infrastructure money flowing. And that was shoved aside for years while roads fell apart. Lots of jobs there.

            I’m not an expert, but the law of the jungle economics is our version of free market capitalism. Last I checked we left the wilds thousands of years ago. I think we need to recognize that.

            In a nation our size we are bound to have thugs, all races. And we do. Democrats are pumping huge sums of “stolen” money to fund better policing, for example. It will take while, of course. I don’t know what Republicans will do.

            We need people with vision. We don’t have too many in office. Heck there is a bunch of revenge committee hearings instead.

            Liked by 2 people

          24. The current system is terrible. Every effort has been cut to the nub, as lobbyists line up to complicate, obfuscate and generally screw up any program.

            Liked by 2 people

          25. FICA doesn’t mean a thing. Sorry, that is BS. 15% out of a low wage job is huge. What the government does with it is not their problem. The deductions are. Plus these funds have been blended to revenue a long time ago.

            Most Americans who talk “free” healthcare are the ones who don’t need it. Like you seem to posit, a little untreated cancer is great incentive for success. Maybe the copays will come down, but money decide life or death.

            The sales ticket shows what goes to the government. So what used to cost you $77 now costs 100. Plus state and local taxes. That is more expensive for 3/4 of Americans. Might be it hasn’t caught in yet.

            Your viewpoint has merits if we were dealing with lab rats. But we are not. We just decided to save every fertilized egg with great care and compassion. Until that baby is born. Then we say “irresponsible woman” here is a couple of hundred since you survived the delivery.

            Exaggerated? Sure. But sometimes reality has a figurative side that clarifies, IMO.

            Liked by 2 people

          26. “The sales ticket shows what goes to the government. So what used to cost you $77 now costs 100.”

            And your paycheck that used to be $77 after taxes is now $100 since FICA and income taxes are no longer deducted.

            And every month you get a prebate to cancel out the taxes on subsistence spending.

            For most people it is a wash, For the poor is it a boost.

            But most importantly every pays a share of the cost of government and everyone knows what that share is,

            That leads to more responsible voting and government.


          27. “For most people it is a wash, For the poor is it a boost.”

            And for the wealthy it is a MASSIVE windfall. Their consumption is a tiny percentage of their income versus 100%+ for almost everyone else. Just what we need – more unequal distribution of wealth. Not.

            And, by the way, the actual plan presented by the Republicans in Congress is a dog’s breakfast that makes the current system look straightforward in comparison.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. I was the Virginia volunteer director for the FairTax for 5 years. I briefed Congressmen and their opponents on the plan. I know it in great detail.

            So, if you have a question, ask,

            For the rich, it is only a bargain if they don’t spend their money and keep it invested. That’s a good thing.

            But eventually all wealth gets spent, if not by the earner, by their heirs.

            I don’t think you have any idea how it would work.


          29. “For the rich, it is only a bargain if they don’t spend their money and keep it invested. That’s a good thing.”

            If the most sybaritic billionaire cannot begin to consume the money they receive each and every day. The effect is that massive earnings are never taxed.

            But I will take you up on your offer to answer a question. What would be the tax on say a billion dollars that was invested in, say, a Chinese company? Would your plan tax money leaving the United States for such a purpose with ZERO benefit for this country?


          30. Such investments are not taxed now.

            The income from those investments is taxed when it is repatriated under the current system. Under the FairTax it would be taxed when it is spent.

            That’s how consumption taxes work.

            The advantage is that the tax burden is 100% transparent and Congress doesn’t get to influence what you spend it on.


          31. “Such investments are not taxed now.”

            Uh, they are made with after tax earnings.
            And whatever earnings they make are also subject to tax. And that tax becomes a liability the year it is earned. But payment is deferred until the earnings are brought home. (We are one of only a few countries that defers paying the tax that way. We should stop doing it. It encourages bad behavior).

            I note your unwillingness to give a straight answer to a straight and highly relevant question. The correct answer was simple – “Under the Fair Tax plan there is no tax on expatriated earnings.”

            The theory of Fair Tax is that we will all benefit when all that untaxed billionaire income is invested. Well, given this mammoth loophole, that theory falls apart.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. Under the FairTax there is no tax on ANY earnings. It’s a consumption tax on retail spending.

            One of the benefits is that we are not putting government’s thumb on the scale when people choose to spend or invest.

            The less we distort the marketplace, the more efficient it will be and the more prosperous the country will be.


          33. “Under the FairTax there is no tax on ANY earnings. . . ”

            Sure, it is a tax on consumption. The billionaires spend a tiny portion of their earnings on consumption. They don’t get taxed. If they buy a “used” $50 million dollar mansion, no tax on that consumption. Meanwhile the price of newly constructed homes has to include the tax. And, as noted, there is nothing to stop people from investing overseas instead of in this country. So that magic job creation is thwarted.

            There is nothing more distorting of the marketplace than the attempt to deal with the difference between new and used goods that the tax requires.

            I know you have invested a lot of emotion in this idea. But, face it, the Fair Tax is never going to happen in the real world. Even Republicans are unwilling to vote for it when it reaches the Congress. It is an embarrassment. Read the plan actually presented to try to deal with all the issues raised. It is a dog’s breakfast.

            Liked by 2 people

          34. The tax on that mansion will have been paid the first time it was sold. How any times do you want to tax the same sale?

            Have you considered the tax ramifications regrading investment income? Why would anyone invest anywhere else other than the US?

            Even the Chinese would be investing in US business.


          35. “Even the Chinese would be investing in US business.”
            They already would be if MAGA-Republicans weren’t so busy with their Asian race-baiting.

            There is no shortage of capital and your tax on consumption would have such a negative effect on prices and demand that even less capital would be needed.

            A tax on consumption that does not apply to the consumption of used goods would make current market disruptions caused by the tax code seem trivial. It is just one more reason why the whole scheme is unworkable.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. Again, how many times do you want to tax the same thing?

            But consider the effects of no tax on production on manufacturing. Why would anyone make anything anywhere other than here?

            Other than using slave labor, you just couldn’t compete anywhere else.


          37. “Again, how many times do you want to tax the same thing?”

            I do not want to add a tax to the purchase of a house or a car at all. But in the context of a Fair Tax regime this question of used versus new is a major issue that would be an administrative nightmare. It may not be much of an issue on small items but on major “consumption” like houses, cars, boats, jewelery, etc. it is part of the reason the recent Bill got nowhere. That, and it was rightly seen as a giveaway to billionaires.

            Liked by 1 person

          38. The FairTax would be extremely simple to administer.

            In most states, it would be collected by the existing sales tax structure, for which the states would be compensated.

            The Federal government would only need to collect it in states that do not have sales taxes.

            For the individual. the only form you would have to file is name and address, and SSN for each member of the household in order to receive the prebate.

            Liked by 1 person

          39. “The FairTax would be extremely simple to administer.”

            So, why was the actual legislation to implement the Fair Tax a complete dog’s breakfast? And, why was the proposed rate for the Fair Tax (30%) so much lower than what would be needed to maintain current tax revenues?

            And by the way, people trying to sell this as a 23% rate are not honest. I prefer my legislation to be written by people who are honest. FWIW this dishonesty was discussed in a scathing piece against the Fair Tax published by the National Review. . .

            “The FairTax sounds too good to be true. It is. The campaign for the FairTax is deeply misleading, and much more likely to set back the cause of tax reform than to advance it.”


            Liked by 2 people

          40. Nothing in that article I haven’t seen before. Here’s a hint, no one who likes to manipulate the economy through the tax code is going to like it.

            Re the 23%/30% thing. Yes, we are accustomed to thinking of a sales tax as an add-on (30%) rather than inclusive(23%) rate, but we have to compare it to income and FICA taxes which are inclusive rates.

            For example, the 15.4% FICA rate if expressed as an add-on rate would be 18.2% so for an apple to apple comparison we use the inclusive rate.

            Nothing dishonest about it.


          41. “Nothing in that article I haven’t seen before.”

            LOL! That does not make it wrong.
            It is worth noting that even this far right-wing journal basically calls it too good to be true and dishonestly sold.

            Your attempt to spin away the rate dishonesty is a fail. People understand sales taxes to be an add on to the price they pay. That is how they appear on every receipt. This is a sales tax. There is very deliberate dishonesty calling a 30% sales tax 23%.

            Liked by 1 person

          42. No, there would be dishonesty comparing an add-on sales tax to an inclusive income and payroll tax.

            You have to choose one view or the other. If you want to quote the Fair Tax as an add-on then you would have to quote FICA and income taxes as an add-on to your takehome pay.


          43. “No, there would be dishonesty comparing an add-on sales tax to an inclusive income and payroll tax.”

            I will be polite this time and just throw the . . . uh . . .baloney flag.

            Your silly justification for this dishonesty is the need to compare rates with FICA? Why? They are not remotely comparable. And NOBODY is trying to sell FICA to the public. That horse left the stable almost a century ago. In addition, Fair Tax is mainly to replace income tax. Its rates are not fudged like this would be.

            Liked by 1 person

          44. “FairTax also replaces FICA.”

            Yes, so I understood.

            Whatever it replaces it is still not honest to call a 30% tax on your purchases a 23% tax. They were too clever by half and brought more attention to the high rate with such shadiness than they might otherwise have had. Even NR commented on it. And that does not even address the fact that even the 30% rate is far too low to cover what is promised. Bait and switch? Or just another trick to get rid of programs and agencies that “conservatives” don’t like?

            Liked by 1 person

          45. The 23/30% rate is more than enough..

            Don’t forget that when off book workers and criminals spend their money, they will be paying the tax.

            A lot of people who evade the system now will become taxpayers.

            Of course, it won’t be enough to cover what Biden wants to spend, but the current system cann’t do that either.


          46. “Don’t forget that when off book workers and criminals spend their money, they will be paying the tax.”

            Yes, that is a plus. For sure. With the IRS hobbled by Republicans it is impossible for them to keep up with all the tax cheats. And sure, the level of spending can be slashed to balance the budget and that will have to happen because the proposed rates do not come even close to covering the current levels of spending.

            “the current system cann’t do that either.”
            Uh, yes it can. If we want it to. It is a question of undoing unproductive tax cuts of the Bush and Trump eras. President Biden has proposed a FY2024 and forward budget that covers current spending and begins to draw down the debt. It is “tax and spend” but more tax than spend.


            Liked by 1 person

          47. Even if all of Biden’s tax increases were passed, (and survived the courts) we would still add 17.3Trillion to the debt over the next decade.

            The current system cannot pay for Biden’s spending, No system can without crushing the economy.

            But the FairTax is revenue neutral. I has to be as it replaces the current taxes on income with taxes on consumption, dollar for dollar. The capture of the underground economy is a bonus.

            The concept of embedded taxes is not an easy one, which is one of the reasons passing the FairTax is unlikely. But passed or not, it would in every way be better.

            YOu always complain about the plight of the poor, but the working poor now pay FICA, and pay for other people’s taxes through embedded taxes.

            Under the FairTax, there will be no embedded tax burden and the prebate cancels out the consumption tax paid on purchases up to the poverty line,

            Those who worry about the poor, if they understood the FairTax, would be its biggest supporters as it is the only system that COMPLETELY untaxes the poor.


          48. “Even if all of Biden’s tax increases were passed, (and survived the courts) we would still add 17.3Trillion to the debt over the next decade.”

            Last time I checked, taxes are legal. Which ones do you think would not survive the courts?

            Liked by 1 person

          49. “16th Amendment violation”

            I doubt that. I pay a tax every year on the unrealized capital gains on my house. But, okay, maybe.

            But, BTW, the Fair Tax is actually unConstitutional. The legislation entered in 2023 recognizes that the 16th Amendment must be removed.

            Liked by 1 person

          50. You pay tax on your property to the Federal government?

            Actually, the way the FairTax deals with the 16th Amendment is kind of cool.

            The first thing the FairTax bill does is to repeal the Income Tax code. Every line of it.

            Then, if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in 10 years, the FairTax sunsets, leaving NO tax code. If they want to go back to an income tax, they will have to start from scratch.


          51. It has not been tried elsewhere.

            Most tax systems have evolved over decades, with tweaks here and additions there.

            The FairTax was planned as a blank paper project. Economists were hired by a group of Texas businessmen to fix the tax system, They reported that the system could not be fixed and that starting from the ground up was a better approach.

            The FairTax was the result of that effort.


          52. I wrote a month ago that it wouldn’t pass because it is too easily demagogued especially to people who are limited to checkers because chess is too hard.

            Which is a shame, as if it were passed, the US would be so prosperous that you’d have to hide deep in the Great Dismal Swamp to avoid a high paying manufacturing job,


          53. “I wrote a month ago that it wouldn’t pass because it is too easily demagogued especially to people who are limited to checkers because chess is too hard.”

            Condecension is never a good look. Especially when it is as overt as this.

            The Fair Tax does not get traction politically because people are stupid. It does not get traction because people are NOT stupid. Reality does not match the oversimplified a priori world in your head. It is as simple as that. And you do not need to be a demagogue to help people understand that.

            Liked by 1 person

          54. “I’ve been trying to resolve it for 40 years . . . It is all you.

            Don’t be so modest. You and other “conservatives” have proven to be exceptional cutters of taxes, cutters of economic support for the poor, and obstructionists. Since the Reagan Revolution the country has gone down the path you chose. The wrong path that got us to where we are today.

            It is YOU who made the highest priority of government tax cuts for the well-to-do and the ultra-wealthy. A higher priority than fiscal responsibility, affordable healthcare, education, housing, infrastructure, and the environment. You name it.

            Liked by 2 people

    3. “The marketplace is not racist, it is simply reality.”

      Sorry, but your tap dance actually says to me that racism is reality. Because you personally don’t have to deal with it, you attempt to deny its existence.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If both Black and White buyers will pay a premium to live in a predominantly White neighborhood, is that racism or recognition that such neighborhoods are safer and better places to live?


        1. If Black buyers have to pay 50% more than their white counterparts to live in those neighborhoods, what does that say?

          And if they are selling the same house in the neighborhood and getting appraised at 20% lower than their white next door neighbor, what does that say?

          I live in a middle income neighborhood. The house are now being listed at over $400K. But if Big Poppa down the street form me puts his house up and it gets appraised at $360K, while the exact same size house, kept as well, and being sold by a white owner gets appraised at $415K, what does that say. THAT is what is happeneing.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Do you have any evidence of a 50% surcharge for Black buyers?

            When I sold my house, the first guy to show up with the asking price got it, and I couldn’t have cared less if he had stripes.


          2. It was a hypothetical.

            And when YOU sold your house, you were fairly appraised. If your asking price was within line with the appraised value so the purchaser could secure the loan, then no biggie.

            BUT, if you were black, your appraisal would have been too low to get your asking price, based on what is happening.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. The key to better race relations is to have mixed neighborhoods. You keep separating them as a market reality. We are talking about fine neighborhoods, not the “hood”. This can happen naturally. But lowballing and effective redlining prevent a lot. Those are distorting the market by preselecting residents via appraisals and mortgage rates. And that is systemic racism. Sounds ok to blame the market until it doesn’t.

          I really like the number of mixed marriages I see. Particularly when also portrayed regularly in ads. It’s harder to dehumanize people you see, meet, work with, and marry.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I would agree that the races are merging and that is overall good.

            But how are you going to force mixed neighborhoods while we are waiting?

            What evidence do you have of widespread mortgage discrimination between people of equal credit scores?


          2. WHIFF. It is about appraised value of a house based on the race of the owner.

            Nice try. Better head back to Florida or Arizona to work on your batting.


          3. BLACK SELLERS, Don. It is the BLACK SELLERS that are getting the short shrift. Quit shifting it to the buyers. THe buyers can buy the house if the appraisal and the selling price are in line and the mortgage can be qualified for under Credit scores.

            BUT, the BLACK seller is the one getting low-balled.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. There are plenty of studies that show loan rate differences for homes, cars, etc. have been different when all the other economic factors are equal.

            I’ll try to find some if you don’t care to search.

            Here is the way I see the problem:

            Housing has been, rightly or wrongly, the main method of wealth accumulation in the United States for middle and working classes since World War II. When the push for suburban living was in full swing, blockbuster real estate agents would bring in a few Black families to a White neighborhood in the cities, then lowball the buyout prices from the panicking Whites. So we ended up concentrating the Black citizens in selected areas. And income disparities kept prices low. Add the massive push for thoroughfares out of or through cities, and these communities were isolated even more or worse, often split up and lost any sense of community.

            (BTW, as far as “village” v. “traditional”, I grew up in a White working class neighborhood in Brooklyn. Mostly Italian, some Greek, Jewish and Scandinavian sprinkled in for flavor. Mothers used to sit outside and watch all the kids playing in the streets. It mattered not whose it was, discipline was the norm from any parent to any child. My first bike was taken from me by an older teen, I was maybe 8. I came home crying that I had lost the bike. My father went out to the street, saw “Bennie” Benson joy riding. He waved him over and slapped him hard across the face. Got my bike back, no repercussions, just the village raising its kids. A little off topic, but it shows the importance of community cohesion.)

            OK, so this was happening from the end of WW2 and for decades later. As laws were passed the methods were less obvious, but just as effective. I know from experience. First married, in Suffolk we rented the second floor of a duplex, heat, water included, for $150/mo. It was not far from RR tracks. Literally across the tracks were tarpaper shacks. I believe those folks were paying $35/wk plus all utilities. I asked a neighbor why those folks didn’t just move here. Being a Yankee, I was the butt of laughter. That was around 1976 or so.

            Fast forward to 2015 and later, there have been huge settlements against lending institutions for actual redlining.

            “ In May 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that Associated Bank had agreed to a $200 million settlement over redlining in Chicago and Milwaukee. The three-year HUD observation led to the complaint that the bank purposely rejected mortgage applications from black and Latino applicants.[38] The final settlement required AB to open branches in non-white neighborhoods.”.

   More cases there.

            It is not over yet. And that is what systemic racism is all about today. The regulatory laws go back to the 60-80 era and later. Yet, culturally we are still trying hard to isolate minorities. And now we wonder why the movements to reverse this are getting more vocal.

            I know all about Sowell and Moynihan and welfare. I never denied that didn’t have an impact. But, (ironically) it was to raise the horrible abject poverty among those poor. Ill-conceived as implemented, but we could no longer ignore the plight of many minorities who bore the brunt of that poverty with few paths put. So the lingering effects? Poor Blacks in rough, ignored neighborhoods. Basically back where we started, but with gangs for added interest. The irony.

            I’m recovering from surgery so I had time this morning to do this. And I know life is hard and complicated for everyone. But if your chances at bat are limited, then a few will get base hits, some a home run. But the “team” still loses.


            Liked by 1 person

          5. I wonder where we would be if Civil Rights legislation was never passed? I don’t have that much faith in humanity to think Mississippi would have changed much even today. Or anywhere else. What we have accomplished is a lot. Obama said today was not like 1950, but more work needs to done. Blacks can, and do, vote. They can enter most professions, got to most schools, eat, sleep and recreate most anywhere (Augusta National finally allowed a Black a decade ago or so). So we have at least removed barriers to a great extent.

            So legislation did work, not perfectly and it may have created some problems. But to deny that racism is still alive, not just among neo-Nazis, is not effective. IMO

            Liked by 2 people

  4. The liberal rag Guardian and the liberals here are trying to claim an anecdotal case proves systemic racism exists in real estate but that is far from proven by one case. The story doesn’t go very far in exactly what is being compared between “white” and “black” neighborhoods but urban life is usually preferred more by blacks and suburban by whites but to be honest suburbia is mostly mixed race so a truly “white” neighborhood would be very hard to find. But I’ll play, I saw a black man beat up a white person so that proves white people suffer systemic racism from blacks. See how easy that was?


    1. It is NOT about neighborhoods. It is about Black home sellers getting their appraisal low-balled because they are Black. Period.

      You don’t believe in systemic racism because you have never experienced it. Here’s Another anecdote for you. My father attempted to buy a home in NW PA when I was about 4. Everything was going along swimmingly until the seller found out we were Jewish. He immediately told the bank NOT to approve the mortgage and the deal fell through.

      So racism and anti-Semitism ARE real. They are happening . And you, as A Christian WHite Male, the dominant species in this country continue to deny the existence and by extension APPROVE of it happening.

      In your anecdote, the white man as attempting to steal food from the Black man and his family. He got what he deserved. Screw YOU.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. LMAO, these paranoid babblefests are getting weirder all of the time, not taking your meds again?
        1. I am not Christian. Idiot
        2. A hone seller can’t just call a bank and tell them not to approve a loan. Idiot
        3. You cant prove blacks are getting low balled based one case or at all. Idiot.
        4. I never said racism isn’t real as black racists exist in equal or greater numbers than whites, see Rasmussen poll. Idiot.
        5. The black man had nothing stolen, he was stealing because he’s your punk brother. Idiot


          1. Depends on how many are in Adam’s family. What a joke that guy is or liberals in general with such crazy off the wall bs accusations.


          2. No need to generalize.

            Without liberals there would not be much progress, without conservatives, there would be not much restraint.

            A bit simplistic to be sure, but more truth than we might admit.

            Anyway, debates get heated here. A good thing in many ways. We seem to be a microcosm of current America. Talk is better than bullets, however.

            Personally I have tried to limit my outrage with petty insults and encourage others to do the same. That doesn’t mean bland and dull. Rather, vociferous and not personal would fit better.

            Few sites have that, BTW. Comments are either cheerleading or just obscene lunacy. We will not be the former, and I would hope to avoid the latter.

            My opinion, of course, but I know you understand. Thanks for reading this.

            BTW, I hope our other posters understand also, which I think they will.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. …/”but I know you understand”

            You are giving him WAAAAYYY too much credit. His attacks on me have grown more and more vitriolic. Yet all he gets is a little hand slap from you. (Better than nothing)Nothing from Don or John. NO threats of “remain civil, or else”, which I have received.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I make a lousy censor, but Don asked John and me to do that since he feels too biased as site owner to render judgements.

            Without finger pointing, I tried to point out the virtues of civility.

            I will try to do my part in my comments, not as “the better man” but to defuse some artillery before firing.

            However, as I noted, I make a lousy censor, but no one else wants to do it.

            So there we are. I hope everyone understands. Perhaps if Lois sees this, she will consider returning.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Mr. Smith clearly has issues. He displays them on every subject.

            I know it is tempting to respond in kind – I have done so myself – but what I recommend going forward is that we all try to ignore his posts. Their trollish nature says … “Please Don’t Feed the Troll” or as Mark Twain (or GB Shaw) put it . . .

            “Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

            Liked by 1 person

        1. You might as well be. You sound just like those “Christians” who claim moral superiority over all.
          In 1968, when banks were mostly local and regional, yes they could. ANd it happened more than once.
          It has been proven, Just because you choose not to be honest, doesn’t make it untrue.
          The Rasmussen Poll. has been taken down by NUMEROUS organizations as poorly worded, poorly conducted, and has the usual RIGHT wing lean that Rasmussen is known for. DO your research, simpleton.
          Your hatred continues to roll so easily off your fingertips. Most people with such deep seated hatred for any “other” that exists NEVER sees it, denies it regularly, and is doomed to a life of simple minded blindness.

          AS for your use of the word idiot. It just proves how simple minded and truly idoitc you are. It continues to be the case and nothing you say will ever change that.

          Oh, yeah. GFY.


          1. I’m not the one who said screw you. 2. I’m not the one who sees race under every pebble. 3. I’m not the one who keeps saying GFY. 4. I’m not
            the hater
            look in themirror. 5. Peace, out. Goodbye


          2. Y9u are the one who has referred to me on several occasions as “idiot”, “boy” and several other epithets that I would normally ignore if they cam from someone with any sign of intelligence. But because you are a sophomoric moron, with little or no ability to bring anything enlightening to any discussion here, I will fire back.

            My personal disgust is with YOU. Personally. Your personal disgust and hatred is directed to any “other” you see.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s