Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston residential property taxes to skyrocket in 2010?
By adamg on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 9:31am
Kevn McCrea explains how that could happen - basically, commericial property values are plummeting even faster than residential ones:
The result is that residential taxes will rise, perhaps substantially, even if home values continue to deteriorate in 2009. Successful lawsuits from owners of larger commercial properties may exacerbate the shift of tax liability from commercial properties to residential properties in 2010 and beyond.
Because, remember: Prop. 2 1/2 only limits the total amount of money a city can take in in property taxes, not how much an individual property owner pays.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Wha?
And just the other day I read in the Boston Globe that residential property taxes in Boston are set to fall.
So city finance officials say one thing, and a friend of a guy who blogs says another thing... who to believe?
Lowering the residential exemption would suck. One of the unadvertised benefits of living in Boston is very low property taxes, thanks in part to the exemption. The nominal rate might be 10.97, but the effective rate is lower (e.g. on a 400K house it's effectively 7.22)
But that's only one part of the equation
A drop in the tax rate doesn't necessarily mean a drop in taxes. I'm not sure about Boston, but in general, Prop 2 1/2 determines the maximum tax levy. If property values are rising faster than the tax levy, the tax rate goes down, even though the total amount of taxes goes up.
Put simply: if x times y equals a constant, and x goes up, y must go down.
So are your property values rising?
Mine aren't. I'd be perfectly happy to pay more taxes if my property were increasing in value, but as far as I can tell, it isn't. I don't see the city coming out to reassess the property as worth more than it was last year in an obviously falling market.
Prop 2 1/2 has two provisions:
1. The property tax levy ceiling (the amount raised) can never exceed 2 1/2% of the full cash value of all taxable property in the city or town.
2. The property tax levy cannot increase from year to year by more than 2 1/2%, with certain exceptions for new growth, or through over rides and exclusions as adopted by the voters.
I think the blogger's friend is theorizing that at some point soon the 2.59% assessed tax on the approx. 330B of commercial property in Boston will no longer compensate for the effective <1% residential rate on the approx. 60B of residential property, and Boston will be forced to raise residential rates to compensate, which would be possible up to the overall 2.5% ceiling. However, even if that did happen, the alleged prospect of "10 percent increases" would require an override, which I don't think would pass.
The coming state local aid
The coming state local aid cut will also require property owners to make up the difference. Double whammy.
My biggest concern with
My biggest concern with raising real estate taxes too high is that we could send an extra percentage of homes that are on the brink of foreclosure into the abyss if we force real estate taxes up to close the gaps. That wouldnt help matters much as those homes drop off the tax map as its much harder to collect taxes from these properties then from normal home owners.
state to cut local aid? Watch your RE tax bill soar
Property value assessments are dropping but the city doesn't cut budget when that happens, it raises the rate per $1000.
When commercial real estate tax revenues drop the city can make it up from residential and/or state aid but the state is now threatening to cut aid to cities and towns.
With that news in mind, I'm not so happy about the $1,000,000 allocated to beautify Washington Street in West Roxbury and "improve" the train stations. I love public transportation, which is why I bought my home near the commuter rail but I can't understand what they have in mind for station improvements and whether that money could be better spent elsewhere.
“Communities should be
Taxes flat or lower in 2009, higher, maybe much higher in 2010
All - I am Kevin's anonymous financial person - here are my answers to your postings:
Gareth - yes residential taxes will go down in 2009 - but not for the reason you cite. The tax rate will be about 3% lower - but the residential exemption will also fall to probably about $1350 (it's based on median house price which I believe is down about 10% - maybe a little more). These roughly wash each other out for most homeowners. Net, net, most homeowners will see their taxes go down purely because their home is worth less and because commercial properties had a good 2007 (assessments are based on prior year's values).
Brigid - you are correct - the rate is basically a function of dividing the total amount of taxes collected by the assessed values (with all kinds of adjustments to account for classification, exemptions etc. etc. etc.). Currently 60% of our city's revenue comes from property taxes - I believe this is the highest of any major city in the country. This is extremely dangerous for many reasons - one in my explanation to Gareth below.
Gareth - 2nd blog - you are incorrect on this statement. Residential taxes for an individual or even the whole city can easily increase by greater than 10%. Keep in mind that 2010 taxes are based on values of properties as of Jan 1, 2009 and 2011 on values as of Jan 1, 2010. Commercial properties will pay about $900 million in property tax in 2009 and residential about $500 million. This gets a little complex, but basically a small reduction in commercial valuations can shift a huge amount of taxes to the residential properties (that's why our taxes went up so much from 2004-2008 - mine increased about 50%). If one makes the reasonable assumption that commercial values decrease 10% in each of the next two years and residential values decrease 5% in each year we will see increases of 10% or greater in both years, although this will not be evenly distributed to all owners - some may see 30-40% increases, others only 10-15% increases.
Notwhitey - only if there is a prop 2 1/2 override - otherwise the city will have to cut staff
Shadymilk - exactly
Anon - yes
Funny math
Okay, I see where you're getting your numbers from. You're basing them on a theoretical inherent worth, rather than actual assessments or actual rates. You're saying not that the city will raise the stated rate by 10%, but that theoretical property values will fall so much relative to stable assessed values that the effective rate on this theoretical worth will raise.
Well, it's nice to learn that's all you were talking about. You had me worried there for a moment.
Yes, homeowners all have to deal with the reality that their assessed value changes at a different pace than their house's theoretical sale value. But if we're smart, we already had that factored in. Call it payback for those years when the assessed value didn't keep up with the actual value - which, if we're lucky, still continue.
Huh?
No - I am saying that the actual taxes you pay will very likely go up by 10-15% for each of the next two years. Based on your other post you should budget for an extra $600-1000 in taxes annually going forward. This involves the assumption that commercial values fall about 5% faster than residential values over the next two years. There are a lot of moving parts to this, so hopefully I'm wrong, - but to quote a city official at a recent hearing who has a little more real time visibility on this than I do "I'm very concerned about next year."
TY
Steve M,
Great post. Thank you for the follow up comments Very helpful, Gareth's protestations notwithstanding.
Residential Exemption
Gareth - residential exemption is set by formula - if home prices go down then the exemption goes down - and vice/versa.
Also - hate to break the news to Boston homeowners - but that residential exemption is a lot less valuable than most think. The "advertised" rate is not what most people get. the median nominal benefit for a resident is actually about $700 and the after tax benefit is less than $500 (by not paying the taxes, you don't get the tax deduction). Making matters worse - most homebuyers just factor the tax savings into their homebuying decision - so that tax break is just put toward bidding up the price of homes in Bostonm (just as lower interest rates leads to higher prices) - so if you think you are saving taxes - guess what - the home you bought got bid up and so now you have to pay more in interest, principal and down payment to get the same house probably far more than offsetting the annual break you get on your taxes. Are you surprised you've been scammed by your politicians who peddle this drivel!
It gets worse - these taxes are transferred primarily to landlords who pass it on to their tenants and the extra amount you pay to buy a home increases as the value of the home decreases. This hurts those at the bottom of the economic food chain the most!
Advertised rate
It's true that you don't always get the full exemption. But you still do get a great deal in Boston for property taxes.
A great place to learn more about what residential exemptions actually are is Boston assessing online.. You can look up the assessed value and the taxes owed on any property in Boston, and do the math yourself. That way there's no doubt about what the actual exemption is, and what the effective tax rate is.
The rate is based on 30% of the average value of all residential property in the city, which is $135,695 for FY 2008. So we actually get only $1,488.57, which is okay with me! That makes my effective rate 7.8 per 1000, which compares very well to surrounding communities. My mother out in Amherst pays twice that rate, and doesn't get near the level of service we get in Boston for our taxes.
It's maybe a lot of fun to play with theoretical issues like did somebody bid this up based on that, but it quickly becomes an inextricable train wreck if you factor in too much of the real world. House prices in Boston are far lower than they would be if they were across the line in Brookline or Newton, thanks to one major factor: the infamy of the school district. That's our major source of savings. A nice house in Roslindale is half what it would be in Brookline; quibbling about 200 bucks here or there is irrelevant. There's really no scam going on here - just, apparently, some sour grapes on your part.
The question of residential exemptions is also irrelevant once you bring landlords and tenants into it. The residential exemption only applies to owner-occupied property, so that pretty much leaves them out of it. Sorry, renters!
As far as hurting the little people, sure, everything hurts the little people... except the residential exemption. The less your place is worth, the greater the impact of the residential exemption for you. The exemption is the same for every property, so the less the place is worth, the lower the effective tax rate. That means that Boston effectively has a progressive property tax rate.
Advertised rate
Gareth -
Thank you for making my point. Most people are blissfully ignorant of the effects of this law and think they are getting a great deal when they are not. If you are calculating your taxes to be 7.8 per '000 then your home should be assessed in the mid 400's. (10.97*460-1468 is roughly equal to 7.8*460). Your benefit from the exemption is probably about $450-$550 (less after income taxes) because without the exemption the tax rate would be much lower - probably mid 9's, so A) your true benefit is relatively small and B)you probably had to pay thousands more to buy your home than you would without the exemption - that's the way a leveraged competitive market like real estate works.
So yes you don't give City hall that extra $500 every year. You already paid a chunk to the previous owner and if you have a mortgage, you fork that over to the bank every month with interest. Your net savings from the exemption is thus probably zero or maybe even negative. You just send the money somewhere else but never realized it.
Here's the problem - because you don't send that money to city hall, someone else does. Who? for the most part landlords to the tune of almost $50 million a year. If you raise the taxes on the landlords, what do they do? Eventually - they pass it on to tenants.
So the $50 million question is that in a city that perennially talks about how unaffordable our housing is, why do we enact laws that are politically popular but raise the cost of housing, especially for those on the margin that are renting or trying to buy a starter home/condo.
Full disclosure - my taxes would go down by about 1% if they repealed this law (which if they did should be grandfathered for current owners- possibly with a means test and phased out for new owners over 10-20 years). Sour grapes over $80 - hardly. Just looking for good government which seems to be an oxymoron.
Funny math redux
Gee, if I accept your assumption that the overall rate would be lower without the exemption, then the exemption is worth less? Ookay. Any other assumptions you want to throw in there while you're at it? Oh, right, an assumption that the exemption directly affects the housing value. I guess it does that for non-owner occupied property too, eh? I guess you can prove any point if you throw in enough assumptions. Gets a bit circular after a while, though, dunnit?
How about I continue to count the actual money and you keep counting the imaginary money based on assumed conditions? I bet you'll get rich like that. Worked great for Lehmans.
Now, the problem... as you say (hey, thanks for proving my point), it's not a problem for us homeowners. It's a benefit for us. Somebody else pays higher taxes so we can pay lower taxes? I say great, just as any rational person would.
And, once again, as for the 'hurting the poor people' argument, sure, it hurts all renters to a certain extent (rich and poor alike). But anybody who can find an inexpensive property to buy in Boston (I hear there's a shack in East Boston...) will be greatly favored by the exemption. It makes property taxes effectively progressive for owner-residents.
Now, the problem... as you
I always get a kick out of the people who say how unfair it is that the person who lives in a city (lets say Boston) pays less in taxes then someone who owns a rental property in that city (Boston) but lives in another city (Lets say Newton.) Lets put aside all the rationalizations behind granting an exemption and look at the number one reason why it happens... It happens because home owners who live in their homes tend to vote at much higher rates then anyone else , except maybe seniors who live elsewhere (although they used to own homes and have no reason to vote for someone advocating a revocation of the exemption.) So politicians and city managers are faced with two groups of people, one group lives in another city and doesnt pay attention to you (except for maybe an occasional check from the more well to do) and then group two who lives inside your city and since they own the house will probaly be there for years and years. If you were a politician who wanted to be reelected in 2009 which group would you try to pacify?
Well, yeah, you could be all cynical like that
Or you could consider another explanation for the residential tax break:
People who own homes are more invested in keeping up their blocks and neighborhoods than remote landlords, so by giving a residential tax break, the city encourages home ownership, which in turn helps stabilize neighborhoods, reduce crime, etc.
I always thought it was cool Boston went even further, with a variety of grant/loan programs to help homeowners renovate their homes.
Don't drink the Kool Aid!
Adam - first thanks for joining the discussion and hi - we met at the civic forum (I think we may have discussed the train museum in Roslindale).
Anyway - that is one of City Hall's arguments and it's true if you believe that homebuyers say - hey - I can buy a $300,000 house with a $1000 tax discount so I'll put the discount in my pocket. I've worked in real estate and now in finance and my experience with real world buyers on leveraged assets is very different. Price is ultimately determined by cash flow.
Unfortunately what happens in the real world is that inevitably that tax discount simply gets lumped into "housing budget" and people just use it to bid up the cost of houses via a bigger mortgage. When interest rates fell a few years ago, did people say - oh I can save money - no - they said - I can buy more house. Unfortunately, that "discount" was given to everyone so housing prices just got bid up and the only winners were those selling houses and the banks (unless you tried to buy another house or later got foreclosed on). What happens in the real world is that by giving a tax discount the market moves the price from say $300,000 to $310,000. So instead of paying an extra grand a year to city hall, you pay $12,500 more for the house and it costs you an extra $600 a year in interest to carry the loan plus you need a bigger downpayment or may possibly have to get PMI or an exotic mortgage to buy the house. These are destabilizing forces, not stabilizing.
It's not an easy or intuitive argument, but unfortunately it's the way markets work. In essence this is a subsidy and one of the first things you learn in economics is that subsidies increase prices. Sadly, as outlined above, those most punished by this system are people living closest to the margin or struggling to get a starter home in Boston. The law may be well intentioned, but the law of unintended consequences once again is far more powerful.
Your math IS funny
Gareth - if you get rid of the residential exemption the tax rate will indeed go down about $1.00-$1.75 (the actual calculation is extremely complicated and you need the city's resources) - but basically the value of the exempt property is taken out of the denominator in the formula determining the tax rate - which drives up the rate. Put it back in and the rate goes down to somewhere in the low to mid 9's. This is not an assumption - it's a mathematical fact.
My case that subsidies (as this is) drives up prices is well established economic theory. It's taught in every decent college in America. Have you been reading? Yes you get a "tax discount" but unfortunately, when you weren't looking prices on your home got driven up so your "savings" simply went to the prior owner instead of the city PLUS the city's landlords had to make up the lost revenue (unless you bought in before the exemption was set up - then good for you).
Your logic is incorrect at the end - because the subsidy is greater for lower value homes - they get hit worse - sure their tax rate is lower than a buyer of a higher valued home but these are really the people that typically buy their houses by maxing out their mortgage and competition probably pushes up the cost of home ownership for them by tens of thousands of dollars.
As I said to Adam - it's counterintuitive, but it's the way the real world and real markets work - silently, invisibly they find their own level and attempts to mess with this are mere distortions. It's like throwing a rock in a bucket - all you do is make waves on the surface - but the water level still goes up.
Fascinating
It's always fascinated me how much of the dismal "science" is just dogma masquerading as mathematics.
The math is pretty simple. If your property is worth less than the exemption (135K), you will not pay property tax. This is money saved. To the extent that your property exceeds that exemption, you will pay more taxes.
If the exemption were removed, replacing it would indeed take rejiggering the rate. But the rejiggering would not replicate the current situation: some people (owner-occupants) win, and some (landlords/tenants) lose.
Now you can pretty that up will all kinds of ideological obfuscation, and say that that saved money is really bad for the guy who saved it and it's hidden somewhere else and etc. You can pack in so many bogus assumptions that you can argue that actually it costs us twice, three times! But that really doesn't wash for those who didn't drink your koolaid. Hey, rock on, dude! Drinking that koolaid is a prerequisite in some circles. Now that you've masterered econo-fantasy talk, you're qualified to sell collateralized debt obligations.
Role Play
OK Gareth - let's try this. You and I have both spent every weekend the last 3 months scouring West Roxbury for a home with our respective spouses. Finally a really nice home comes on the market for $360k. The identical home next door just sold for $360k. If there were no exemption - we would have to pay the taxes and could only qualify for enough mortgage to pay $350k. However, thanks to the exemption we can now get a slightly higher mortgage since we don't have to spend that money in taxes - so we can afford to spend up to $360k max. We both love the house and our spouses agree. I put in the first bid at $350k. Your broker calls and tells you that the house you like has a really good offer on it. What do you do?
Math versus non-math
Why should I play a silly game based on your bogus assumptions?
You don't seem to understand the difference between what is math and what is not math.
135-135=0.
That is math.
1.079% of 0 = 0.
That is math.
If somebody were in a theoretical situation with his theoretical spouse and there were a house that was... etc. = not math.
Theory is fabulous. It's lots of fun. But don't mistake it for math. Just because it seems logical doesn't mean it's true. One of the notoriously erroneous theories you seem to be relying on here is that of the rational economic actor. People aren't entirely rational. And they don't count things up to the last dime when they make their choices unless they're very unusual. So that's not a very good basis for an argument. I doubt many people who buy houses in Boston even consider taxes for a minute.
Are the yankees recruiting you?
Gareth - if you were a baseball player you would be the first player to go 7 for 6. You have made seven errors of fact or logic in your last 6 postings.
That kind of silly game you refuse to play is a staple of game theory. And if you did this with say a college class, you would find that virtually every student would bid the price up to at least $360k - in the real world first one there probably gets the house unless there is a flaw in the offer or the owner can get a real bidding war going.
There are two errors above:
1) 135-135 does not equal zero under prop 2 1/2 - I'm a little tired of giving you the answers so you can look this one up yourself.
2) EVERY borrower that takes out a mortgage - especially now - takes property taxes into account. There is a very simple formula for mortgage qualification - 28% of monthly income less homeowners insurance (including PMI if you have it), less mortgage payment, less PROPERTY TAXES. If your property taxes are lower - you qualify for more mortgage - so what happens if your taxes are lower - most people use that to bid up the price of the house that someone paying cash for example is also trying to buy which is the same point I've been making all along. Is it calculated down to the dollar - no - but on the margin it's probably plus or minus 10-20%. Are there exceptions - sure. But this is the dominant behavior in the marketplace which dictates pricing.
This is my last post - I was taught that when my debating partner is reduced to repeating arguments and attacking me personally - they have lost.
Errors
If the guy who can't subtract 135 from 135 and get 0 is lecturing me about errors... I just gotta laugh. You obviously wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.
And you are so cute with your academic placenta still attached. Ooh, college students play game theory games. And that's just the way it works in the real world. Your faith is touching. I almost want to be around just to warm myself on the combustion of your innocence.
Really, really, kid, when someone bids on a house they aren't doing math involving the nickels and dimes of property tax in their heads. And people with any sense don't bid up to the maximum they qualify for. That kind of uber-rational calculation only happens in academic simulations.
It's probably a good idea for you to give up; you make a pretty hopeless argument.
Not a post - just a score update
Should have quit when you were behind. You've outdone yourself. You are now up to 10 errors in 7 posts - this one is a record 3 factual errors in one post- almost one per paragraph!
Thanks for playing
In case I ever want to unlearn math, I'll call you.
With what you call facts, I guess I am more accurate the more you disagree.
So thanks for the validation.
But I do want to thank you for coming on here. Because you helped demonstrate that the prediction of 10% tax raises in Boston was just the wacky idea of some random schmo with a head full of theories, rather than anything based in fact or math. So we can all stop worrying now! Thanks!
not as dense or as stubborn
I don't want you to think you're bad at explaining things. I take your point and I agree with your analysis.
RE taxes are part of the total cost to a homeowner. We pay RE TAX, plus P+I until the mortgage is paid off,and PMI until we have sufficient equity. These are the main costs of ownership and they are paid every year until payment is complete (it never ends with the taxes, though).
If the RE tax burden of a home in Boston is 50% of an identical home across the boarder in Dedham, and all other things are equal, the sale price of the house in Boston will be higher than the sale price of the house in Dedham, and the difference will be the net present discount value of the difference of re tax tax payments for the length of ownership.
And don't mind Gareth, he's not as dense or as stubborn as it might seem at first blush.
Thanks anon
Thanks anonymous - everybody I've explained this to but Gareth agrees (although the politicians won't touch it with a ten foot pole even though they agree - off the record of course). Like any subsidy (eg - corn) - the res exemption just raises the cost of the product. Nobody's breaking out a calculator and figuring this out - the market just takes care of it by itself. Oh well - so far he's outnumbered about a dozen to one.
A dozen fools
Will always come up with a worse answer than one intelligent person.
Theory is self-evident. In theory, things always work great. In theory, the market fairly prices commodities, because we are all rational actors possessing and considering all relevant information. That's why in theory there are no asset bubbles or crashes.
Most of us have to live in reality, however.
In reality, you can't find two identical houses side by side, one in Dedham, one in Boston. In reality, people choose to live in Dedham or Boston on purpose. In reality, not all houses in Boston ever get the residential exemption. That's because the owners don't live there. I'm sure you could come up with a theoretical loophole for the case where a non-resident owner sells a house on which he pays the full 10+ to a would-be resident owner who is going to pay <7. Or a theoretical leveling of the real present value considering the fact that some owners plan to stay in a house for 30 years and some for 3. But there's little point. The simple answer is that in reality things work approximately, not exactly.
Which means that there might be some effect, but it's not going to equal the individual case. There's no perfect theoretical house, and even the mean is going to be somewhat off. Messy, messy reality. Why can't it behave?
Now go find a dozen other people who remember Econ 101 and will swear on a bible the market is God Incarnate and hence perfect. And I'll laugh at them too.
Back to school
Gareth - can you give me a real world example of a subsidy that doesn't artificially raise prices of the subsidized product?
Question
Gareth - do subsidies raise or lower prices for those not receiving the subsidy? Please give me your best "real world" answer.
not as dense or as stubborn
Steve, I take it back.
Here, Gareth argues that because the scenario assumed to demonstrate a principal cannot happen in real life, that the principle does not hold either. If he believes that, he's a moron. If he doesn't, he's a sophist who's full of shit.
One of the ways to call a sophist on their bullshit is to ask them to argue their understanding of how it works in the real world. Go ahead Gareth, have at it; what the general principle, how does it apply?
Assuming validity of impossible situations
The reason that the neat little theoretical situation is irrelevant to the real world has to do with the actual complexity of the market and human decision-making versus the tidy fantasy. You concede that the scenario cannot happen in real life, yet insist that the fantastic situation you dream up proves some sort of principle. Well, in that case, whoever wins is the one with Gandalf on his side, because he would totally kick Yoda's ass.
I am uninterested in arguing with theory, because the validity of theory is a closed loop of sophomoric discourse. I am much more interested in facts and reality than in pseudo-academic quibbling. Again, I am very gratified to learn that the basis of the projection of increased property taxes in Boston is just a bunch of Econ 101 pipe dreams rather than something actually based in fact or plan. Steve was unable to produce any facts whatsoever to bolster his argument, and made recourse to a bunch of pedantic econ-theory boondoggles instead, and that satisfied me greatly.
To answer Steve's question, yes, I can think of a case where a subsidy does not result in increased value of the subsidized product. Just look at farm subsidies: subsidizing agricultural products may lead to overproduction and thus reduced prices. I recommend he look into New Zealand agriculture for a case where ending subsidies (in 1984) caused an increase in value.
But again, I'm uninterested in discussing theory; it's very very boring. It's bleedingly obvious that agricultural production is irrelevant to housing -- except insofar as subsidies might partially underwrite housing construction, which in theory... would bore me to tears. I hope Steve discovers that he's a man of his word after all and buggers off. Be you satisfied.
Not a post - Another Score Update - Gareth into double digits
I've lost total count of Gareth's errors if anyone else is keeping a tally - but his comment on real world NZ subsidies is in error - once they got rid of subsidies the unit value increased (meaning either the price went down, quality went up or both) - meaning they could compete on the world markets when forced to be more efficient. Here's a link to a very good article showing Gareth the real world errors of his ways:
http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/n...
A quote from the article:
Brace yourself: this is free-market faith to make Adam Smith proud. But the New Zealand experience is pretty persuasive. Well into its second decade of subsidy-free farming, New Zealand enjoys a worldwide reputation for its high-quality, efficient and innovative agricultural systems.
Read on, kid
The article's more interesting after the second paragraph.
Subsidies removed, prices rose.
So how are you doing on those facts? Minus ten for still not being able to come up with any facts to support your theory that property taxes are going to rise, and minus one for bad form for each post after saying you were done. That makes me one gazillion ahead, so nyah nyah.
One more error
Gareth makes another error - paragraph says these factors stabilized or rose. Gareth draws a conclusion from inconclusive/vague evidence (and makes no account for inflation, the cost of the subsidy in the prior prices or the "irrationality of markets" that he asserts).
I have Gareth at something like a gazillion errors in 10-12 posts? Anyone else keeping score.
Garth
Garth, This is your ass and this is your elbow. Did you take one economics course in college?