Brutus_buckeye

has anyone ever been the the South Park Pizza Tavern. It has some of the best pizza in town, plus a great beer selection.

Just a thought but - Could a short run pay cut lead to a long term pay gain in the future? Would you be willing to take that risk that by taking a 10% pay cut now, there is a 90% chance that you will be better off earning much more than you do today sometime in the next 10 years. would you take the risk or would you prefer the certainty? Please this is a hypo and is not meant for social commentary but mainly to see about risk tolerance?

That is not what i was suggesting at all. I was simply referring to the fact that they had no choice over there. If they did not accept the austerity measures, the consequences would have been much worse.

I am the son of a public school teacher, my mother was in the teachers union growing up. I am in favor of SB5. I understand how teachers feel but we all have to take a cut sometimes, it is nothing personal. Look at Greece. The people are rioting because their way of life is getting cut but at the end of the day, they will be better off for it, albeit not it is a bitter pill to swallow.

I think that may be a fallacy. While liberals support rail in general and are against SB5, I think many of hte people who will vote against SB5 are people who voted for Kaisch. The cops and firefighters and their families who are fiscally conservative and really do not care about rail. Ihave some fire fighter friends that rally against SB5 but they are just as vehemently against rail and the streetcar. They look at the streetcar as funding that should be going to help them keep their jobs or not have to take a paycut.

They also recently purchased the old Elementary School on Wyoming. May have plans to develop that area soon as well

With the renovations on vine street, in a number of years people may be talking about the Vine street Kroger being a "cool" place to buy groceries and it may even become more of an upscale store.

Dont think the condo development is going anywhere since the homeless shelter will not sell out.

^ I may be mistaken but how does the NAACP really have any ability to dictate the % of minority contractors or the city have the authority to dictate the number of union/non union jobs on this site? After all, isnt this being financed by private money on private property?

Josh SPring's heart may be in the right place but unfortunately for both him and the city, he has yet to figure out how to use his head and do the right thing

I think the garages are in the best place. 71 prevents much development going up there and they are in the empty space by 71. This allows for space along Reading for development and also OTR area, and to infill some of the area toward P&G that is now parking. Maybe in the next 10 years there may be a hotel highrise around there. (I know there is no plans for a hotel within the first 5 years, but maybe down the line)

NC has a democrat for their governor so that was probably a key issue. The governor is able to help with organizing in that state. Colorado had a dem gov in 08 as well. Cleveland probably fell out of the running when Strickland lost because they lost some of the ability to organize when they lost an incumbant governorship. That is just my theory, but who knows.

The original building is still there. The construction done in 1982/83 was an addition that encircled the original building. The facility was completely renovated at that time but because of the addition and renovation, the layout of the building is very disjointed and you will notice that if you are inside the building. Also, with the old building still there, it limits some of the things they could do technology wise because of the thick walls of the old structure. This new law school has been on the drawing board for at least 10 years now and is not going to take off anytime soon. I will be surprised if it breaks ground sometime in the next 5 years given the capital requirements involved.

The median I posted was NET WORTH, not "liquid assets". Nice try, though. Unrealized life insurance proceeds are not part of net worth. They are part of the estate which are two different things. They do not get realized during hte life of the individual so therefore are not part of the net worth.

On another estate tax note, it if you look at it closer, the government has the potential to make much more money with no estate tax than with one. It is a shortsighted argument that many liberals miss because they think they are sticking it to the rich. The reason being is that without the estate tax, the heirs get no step up in basis of their securities and assets. Down the line, these will eventually be sold, and probably for much more than they were worth at the time of death bringing in much more revenue than they would have with the estate tax. Of course the downside is that the asset could decrease in value, but no risk no reward right

Agreed. http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/estate/index.stm As Ram23 said, there are no taxes on an initial amount (which is actually $338,333). Thus, I don't think the Average Joe is paying ANY estate tax. (The median net worth of Americans 65 and over is $232,000 as of 2009.) And even someone at DOUBLE the median net worth would only lose ($500,000 - $338,333)*.06 = $7,660 out of the estate to taxes (no federal estate taxes are paid on any estate worth less than $3.5 million), which equals about 1.5% of the estate. I;m not quite sure how the children are "bearing the burden" of anything when they receive $466,000 in assets (without any work required to receive it) and in turn only owe the government 1.5% of that amount in taxes. And considering the net value of the assets received is still $458,340, I would hardly say the estate has been "depleted". Oh, and newsflash......if I work my ass off and make $500,000, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than the inheritors of said estate in my example. So in short, your post was full of wild inaccuracies and misconceptions. Also, you keep referring to double taxation. However, you seem to ignore that money is always taxed once on the way in and once on the way out. This is why the sales tax isn't higher. Even proponents of the Fair Tax push for a sales tax MUCH higher than what we have now. Our taxes are simply distributed between the "inward taxes" (income, capital gains, etc.) and "outward taxes" (sales tax, estate tax, etc.). Just because I have paid income tax on money I have earned doesn't mean I am exempt from paying sales tax on that same money when I spend it. The same should apply for gifted money or money left to other through an estate. It needs to have the "outward tax" applied to it still. Agreed. The average Joe has to pay more often than you would think. WHile the average Joe may not have liquid cash in the amount of $333K and above, many do have life insurance policies with payouts of $500k or even $1 million or more (which typically cost only a few hundred a year to maintain). These amounts would all be subject to the estate tax.

When your state is being taken over by fascists, Pittsburgh starts to sound pretty good. Political persuasions are just minor disagreements in the grand scheme of things, just like the dyanmic of a large family arguing at the dinner table. In the end we are all from Ohio, and it beats the hell out of Sh***sburgh

Wow, I never thought I would hear a true Ohioan, let alone northeast Ohioan say they would rather be associated with Pittsburgh over Ohio, what has this world come to.

We had ours at the Holiday Inn in Eastgate and I have been to a couple others there. It may seem like just a run of the mill place but the ballroom is very nice (nicer than you would expect for a suburban hotel) and they really do a phenomenal job with weddings. Their wedding package is top notch and very affordable. We were choosing between the Cincinnati Club, Millenium, Phoenix, and Holiday Inn and the Holiday INn provided twice as much for around $5000 less then the other places. Granted, it is not downtown, but they did a great job.

I was being facetious with my comment about fairness. They are going to cut Kucinich's district because it is the most vulernable one to cut and then they will cut a Republican district to strengthen the incumbents position (Probably look to strenghen Renciarri)

The enquirer had an interesting article on it. Some republican strategists thought they would eliminate one Democratic seat and one Republican seat becuase it would be unfair for the Democrats to have to bear the complete brunt of the redistricting.

what about the Cincinnati Post Building?

^ The company did not do well in the 60's as the tax burden continually grew higher and higher. The ecomony boomed in the postwar years from 1945-1964 approx, as the US was the chief industrial power having to supply goods to the rest of the wolrd. As the rest of the world rebuilt, the US competitve advange started to decline. As you remember it was in the 1960's that the first imports from Japan began showing up in the US. The steel industry that collapsed in the early 70's was not because of any event or policy that occured during 1971 or 72 etc, but it was from actions that were occurring in the 1960's and earlier. Similar, the US Car industry collapse was a long time in the making and not the result of the Bush or Obama administration or even the fault of the CEO in charge that saw its demise (although he did contribute to it). The groundwork for the auto failure was laid a generation prior to that occurring dating back to the 1980s decisions that ceded market share to competitors. To argue that supply side economics does not work does not capture the proper time frame. If looking at the policy over a 24 month period you will not see the benefit of these policies. If you look at the results 8-10 years later, there are more positive results (take the Reagn polcies of the mid 1980's they were not truly effective until early 1990s when Clinton took office. Similarly, the Keynesian approach used by FDR in the New Deal has been seen as prolonging the Great Depression for years longer than it would have been if more of a supply side or hands off policy had been used.

The hesitation with a land contract for the seller is that once the buyer has at least a 20% equity stake in the property, in the event of a default, the holder of the land contract must seek foreclosure (same as a bank) and then seek to evict the tenant. If it is structured as a lease-option, this is not necessarily the case because there is no equity until the property is actually transferred in full (like a traditional sale). This wasy in the event of a default, the seller would only need to file an eviction action. For a buyer, a land contract is the better way to go but a seller would prefer the lease option to provide extra security. I understand why the seller may be worried about the risk involved, but if the house would not otherwise sell, he is left with limited options. It may mean offering a premium for the right to do this to make him more comfortable (i.e. he may be asking 100k, would sell to a cash buyer for 80k but consider financing if you offer 110K). Could be a way to get some movement on his part.

If you cant get a loan from a bank, there are many other options, especially since it appears you are talking bout only 10-20k. You could always borrow from Friends and Family and create a note providign a fair amount of interest. You could use a hard money lender to make improvements to increase the value of the house, or you could even use credit cards (although that is not the best choice always). Point being, there are many other options besides banks, just need to get creative. Why not see if you can buy the property on a land contract or a lease option. The current owner is then providing the financing for you, you live there and effectively own it (and have no mortgage on your credit report). The owner wins because he gets to sell his house and have someone pay him off over time, you win because you get the house you want. I have bought properties using this method before and it is quite effective.