DISCLAIMER
This short editorial reflects general observations and opinions of the author. It has not been vetted in detail *or* professionally reviewed. Regulations were not analyzed and legal reviews have not been commissioned. It is suggested to perform deeper research to gain greater insight into the issues addressed and solutions proposed.
BACKGROUND
“Equity” is one of those buzzwords that have achieved popularity in recent times. In the past, the word “diversity” may have been more common. The purpose of this paper is to review if current real estate policies do in fact support human rights, opportunity, and the rich fabric of our society.
The author is very biased by an opinion generally against tax deductions entirely (even for charitable donations – Cf the “Volunteer Section” of CondoWhistleBlower.org). This opinion includes overarching simplification of the tax code (just like any responsible corporation would optimize its operations). Perhaps there can be exceptions to this for the most severe social welfare situations (and I am not suggesting that society should not provide for its most needy and weakest members; rather, it is proposed that tax deduction is not the best pathway toward this end).
MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION
The mortgage interest deduction is a tax incentive for homeowners. This itemized deduction allows homeowners to subtract mortgage interest from their taxable income, thereby lowering federal taxes. The original intent of this deduction was to give Americans greater access to homeownership – an integral part of the American Dream at the time.
It is suggested that while well-intentioned, this effort has now failed. It is apparent that this policy actually helps wealthy people become wealthier through simple economies of scale (based upon multipliers of increased net profits). In fact, one does not need to look far to observe the aggregation of housing stock by the utmost wealthy individuals and corporations.
On the flip side, is homeownership as high a priority compared to past generations? New Urbanist trends (including Transit Oriented Development [TOD]) seem to price out all but the most wealthy (even though affordable housing regulations alleviate this somewhat, it is suggested [see future publications] that the middle and working classes require more accommodation).
If one performs a simple analytical and structural review of the mortgage interest deduction and compare it to progressive federal income tax, it becomes obvious that the foundational assumptions of the two programs contradict each other. Frankly, the system is out of control as wealth is transferred from currency to real estate. No personal offense to people like Grant Cardone (who personally predicted his real estate holdings would increase from the current $5Billion to a staggering $50Billion), but the pyramid structures that have developed are obvious. These are not simple issues to tackle, but at minimum, we need to stop providing welfare to the most wealthy.
SECTION 1031 – WELFARE FOR WEALTHY LANDLORDS
Under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), owners who sell investment property in a certain asset class and subsequently purchase another more expensive investment property (in the same class) [according to a certain timeframe] have their capital gains taxes deferred (apparently often indefinitely per the life of the new property).
Is this not welfare for the rich? It’s basically less tax for people who can afford more expensive properties. How on earth is this Section still on the books? Why are the folks who purport to support equity not protesting this Section?
NAR (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®)
The NAR is essentially a government sanctioned mafia with overreaching power that ultimately increases the cost of real estate through the intrusion of their bureaucracy and supporting processes. Of course, the resulting unnecessary costs and the deleterious effect on a robust marketplace are both borne by society, with the least wealthy most severely impacted.
Trademark
First of all, let us consider human and civil rights specifically codified under the 1st Amendment. How on earth did it come to be that “Realtor®” (begrudgingly including the ® symbol) is not sufficiently generic to warrant the term unmarkable? After all, it is such a blatantly obvious inflection/conjugation of “Realty”. Almost all other practices are conjugated for the practitioner using the (phonetic) suffices “er” or “ist”. So how is the NAR above this (we are not talking about Pampers® after all)?
This ostensibly false mark is enforced ruthlessly by the NAR to maintain their power. The etymology of the term “realty, et al” is not based on any proprietary claims or innovations. Nobody dares challenge them in fear of facing their wrath. However, I *DO* have increasing resources to challenge this in case anyone wants to speak to me further about it. Through the enforcement of this bogus mark, practitioners who do not join “the club” (i.e. NAR) are relegated to very long phrases in their (important) professional titles (such as “Real Estate Sales Associate”). This burdensome requirement affects both written and verbal applications – it is also aesthetically displeasing.
Hopefully, one day (soon) the term “Realtor®” will indeed be released to the public (as it should have always been), and the tyrannical word monopoly will cease to exist.
What is the Nature of NAR?
The actual answer to this question speaks volumes (and is highly illustrative of the problem). The NAR is in fact (de facto) ALL of the following:
NAR Litigation
Fortunately, people are beginning to wake up and take some action. A wave of litigation commenced ~2019 aimed at specific components of NAR abuse of power. In fact, some legal summary information is provided on NAR.realtor. Nevertheless, these referenced cases on the surface do not appear to address the foundational aforementioned issues (trademark & entity type). Hopefully, the willingness to even litigate might be a change in course, BUT it must be noted that many of these cases were settled. In short, much more must be done to slay this beast once and for all.
Is NAR Fraudulent?
AGAIN, this opinion piece has not been legally reviewed. Nevertheless, the NAR website strongly suggests the following in various places:
PROFESSIONAL PARALYSIS
I have witnessed many colleagues become very fearful to express their opinions on professional matters. This can even include fear of losing their jobs, and protecting their families as well. Often, a Developer-Government complex develops where professionals essentially become servile. Even where stakeholder engagement is effectively deployed, there appears to be a move away from debate in the professional class (i.e. let all ideas be heard and let the best ones win). Some changes may only occur from the bottom up (starting with the individual). There are historic opinions that the Haymarket Affair (while a different issue) caused an international groundswell that was never reversed. Our society is facing censorship on an unprecedented level. Whereas muckrakers of the past (like Jane Jacobs) have been lionized; today, we face a situation where this type of activity faces threat of criminalization and “depersoning”. Centralized narratives must be adopted “or else” (how dare we exercise our freedom according to renaissance thinking and progress).
POWER AND HYPOCRACY
Please allow me to skip the introduction, and mention a few examples:
Example 1: Massive Property Owners Dictating Environmental and Social Policy
So we now have our nation’s housing stock being sucked up by very wealthy individuals and corporations. BlackRock, Vanguard, and StateStreet (which seemingly are incestually invested in each other) are no exception. Is it not true that these entities also try to dictate “ESG” policies as well? How can a group stealing the American Dream pontificate over social justice? Do they even have the expertise in house to postulate on environmental matters (or have they invented their own [improperly vetted] rules)?
Example 2: Property Owners in Unnatural Settings
Some of the most vociferous defenders of the “climate” are those who own properties that are either geomorphologically unstable or entirely unnatural and manmade. This common situation occurs on barrier islands which naturally shift through deposition cycles. So people try to halt these cycles so they have a better view and good access to the sea. What essentially transpires is the highest real estate values attributed to the highest actual unnatural environmental disruption. Somebody should do a study comparing the per capita grant money awarded to unnatural versus natural habitation patterns (donate, and I will do it).
CONCLUSIONS
Please note that I have access to best of breed legal resources that are willing to fight for these issues. Individual inquiries can be addressed as time allows – recommendations are always welcome (with citations honored as required).
For Questions/Comments, contact info@realestateequity.org
Any support is welcome and feel free to:
This short editorial reflects general observations and opinions of the author. It has not been vetted in detail *or* professionally reviewed. Regulations were not analyzed and legal reviews have not been commissioned. It is suggested to perform deeper research to gain greater insight into the issues addressed and solutions proposed.
BACKGROUND
“Equity” is one of those buzzwords that have achieved popularity in recent times. In the past, the word “diversity” may have been more common. The purpose of this paper is to review if current real estate policies do in fact support human rights, opportunity, and the rich fabric of our society.
The author is very biased by an opinion generally against tax deductions entirely (even for charitable donations – Cf the “Volunteer Section” of CondoWhistleBlower.org). This opinion includes overarching simplification of the tax code (just like any responsible corporation would optimize its operations). Perhaps there can be exceptions to this for the most severe social welfare situations (and I am not suggesting that society should not provide for its most needy and weakest members; rather, it is proposed that tax deduction is not the best pathway toward this end).
MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION
The mortgage interest deduction is a tax incentive for homeowners. This itemized deduction allows homeowners to subtract mortgage interest from their taxable income, thereby lowering federal taxes. The original intent of this deduction was to give Americans greater access to homeownership – an integral part of the American Dream at the time.
It is suggested that while well-intentioned, this effort has now failed. It is apparent that this policy actually helps wealthy people become wealthier through simple economies of scale (based upon multipliers of increased net profits). In fact, one does not need to look far to observe the aggregation of housing stock by the utmost wealthy individuals and corporations.
On the flip side, is homeownership as high a priority compared to past generations? New Urbanist trends (including Transit Oriented Development [TOD]) seem to price out all but the most wealthy (even though affordable housing regulations alleviate this somewhat, it is suggested [see future publications] that the middle and working classes require more accommodation).
If one performs a simple analytical and structural review of the mortgage interest deduction and compare it to progressive federal income tax, it becomes obvious that the foundational assumptions of the two programs contradict each other. Frankly, the system is out of control as wealth is transferred from currency to real estate. No personal offense to people like Grant Cardone (who personally predicted his real estate holdings would increase from the current $5Billion to a staggering $50Billion), but the pyramid structures that have developed are obvious. These are not simple issues to tackle, but at minimum, we need to stop providing welfare to the most wealthy.
SECTION 1031 – WELFARE FOR WEALTHY LANDLORDS
Under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), owners who sell investment property in a certain asset class and subsequently purchase another more expensive investment property (in the same class) [according to a certain timeframe] have their capital gains taxes deferred (apparently often indefinitely per the life of the new property).
Is this not welfare for the rich? It’s basically less tax for people who can afford more expensive properties. How on earth is this Section still on the books? Why are the folks who purport to support equity not protesting this Section?
NAR (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®)
The NAR is essentially a government sanctioned mafia with overreaching power that ultimately increases the cost of real estate through the intrusion of their bureaucracy and supporting processes. Of course, the resulting unnecessary costs and the deleterious effect on a robust marketplace are both borne by society, with the least wealthy most severely impacted.
Trademark
First of all, let us consider human and civil rights specifically codified under the 1st Amendment. How on earth did it come to be that “Realtor®” (begrudgingly including the ® symbol) is not sufficiently generic to warrant the term unmarkable? After all, it is such a blatantly obvious inflection/conjugation of “Realty”. Almost all other practices are conjugated for the practitioner using the (phonetic) suffices “er” or “ist”. So how is the NAR above this (we are not talking about Pampers® after all)?
This ostensibly false mark is enforced ruthlessly by the NAR to maintain their power. The etymology of the term “realty, et al” is not based on any proprietary claims or innovations. Nobody dares challenge them in fear of facing their wrath. However, I *DO* have increasing resources to challenge this in case anyone wants to speak to me further about it. Through the enforcement of this bogus mark, practitioners who do not join “the club” (i.e. NAR) are relegated to very long phrases in their (important) professional titles (such as “Real Estate Sales Associate”). This burdensome requirement affects both written and verbal applications – it is also aesthetically displeasing.
Hopefully, one day (soon) the term “Realtor®” will indeed be released to the public (as it should have always been), and the tyrannical word monopoly will cease to exist.
What is the Nature of NAR?
The actual answer to this question speaks volumes (and is highly illustrative of the problem). The NAR is in fact (de facto) ALL of the following:
- Regulator
- Model code is often adopted by the states which can even become statutes
- Standards Organization
- Trade Association
- Business
- Media Company
- Yes indeed. In fact, they apparently outsource their Realtor.com operations to one of the biggest internet media companies (IAC)
- Data Owner
- They control the MLS through various means while purporting to support independence.
NAR Litigation
Fortunately, people are beginning to wake up and take some action. A wave of litigation commenced ~2019 aimed at specific components of NAR abuse of power. In fact, some legal summary information is provided on NAR.realtor. Nevertheless, these referenced cases on the surface do not appear to address the foundational aforementioned issues (trademark & entity type). Hopefully, the willingness to even litigate might be a change in course, BUT it must be noted that many of these cases were settled. In short, much more must be done to slay this beast once and for all.
Is NAR Fraudulent?
AGAIN, this opinion piece has not been legally reviewed. Nevertheless, the NAR website strongly suggests the following in various places:
- They encourage and advocate for Owner equity
- They empower local markets and small businesses
PROFESSIONAL PARALYSIS
I have witnessed many colleagues become very fearful to express their opinions on professional matters. This can even include fear of losing their jobs, and protecting their families as well. Often, a Developer-Government complex develops where professionals essentially become servile. Even where stakeholder engagement is effectively deployed, there appears to be a move away from debate in the professional class (i.e. let all ideas be heard and let the best ones win). Some changes may only occur from the bottom up (starting with the individual). There are historic opinions that the Haymarket Affair (while a different issue) caused an international groundswell that was never reversed. Our society is facing censorship on an unprecedented level. Whereas muckrakers of the past (like Jane Jacobs) have been lionized; today, we face a situation where this type of activity faces threat of criminalization and “depersoning”. Centralized narratives must be adopted “or else” (how dare we exercise our freedom according to renaissance thinking and progress).
POWER AND HYPOCRACY
Please allow me to skip the introduction, and mention a few examples:
Example 1: Massive Property Owners Dictating Environmental and Social Policy
So we now have our nation’s housing stock being sucked up by very wealthy individuals and corporations. BlackRock, Vanguard, and StateStreet (which seemingly are incestually invested in each other) are no exception. Is it not true that these entities also try to dictate “ESG” policies as well? How can a group stealing the American Dream pontificate over social justice? Do they even have the expertise in house to postulate on environmental matters (or have they invented their own [improperly vetted] rules)?
Example 2: Property Owners in Unnatural Settings
Some of the most vociferous defenders of the “climate” are those who own properties that are either geomorphologically unstable or entirely unnatural and manmade. This common situation occurs on barrier islands which naturally shift through deposition cycles. So people try to halt these cycles so they have a better view and good access to the sea. What essentially transpires is the highest real estate values attributed to the highest actual unnatural environmental disruption. Somebody should do a study comparing the per capita grant money awarded to unnatural versus natural habitation patterns (donate, and I will do it).
CONCLUSIONS
- Without a real marketplace, we cannot have a democracy.
- Without a real democracy, we cannot have equity.
- Saying the word “equity” (moral signaling) is not the same as practicing it
- The true practitioners of equity incorporate it into their daily lives (both personal and professional); a priori, this applies for those refusing to waiver under pressure.
- Hopefully, we have a bright future where real estate becomes a more equitable marketplace. The digital technologies can be deployed to empower (and not oppress) the populace. It would be great if environmental impacts were further integrated into real estate processes.
Please note that I have access to best of breed legal resources that are willing to fight for these issues. Individual inquiries can be addressed as time allows – recommendations are always welcome (with citations honored as required).
For Questions/Comments, contact info@realestateequity.org
Any support is welcome and feel free to:
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by Hostmonster