My Weekend Bike Trip

Route: From Signal Hill subdivision in Burke, to Burke Lake, around the Lake, and back. (the bird's eye view fly over video clip doesn't show the return from the lake back because my iPhone ran out of battery). This is from a cool app called MapMyRide (and MapMyHike).

Land Measurement Conversions

The Success Indicator

Why Should the Seller Pay the Buyer Agent Commission?

The way things in real estate brokerage typically work is the Seller (through his Listing Agent) will offer "cooperative commission sharing" or splitting with the buyer agent.   

Let's assume that the real estate broker/agent representing the Seller (the Listing Agent) charges the Seller 6% commission for selling the house or real property.  What happens with this 6% commission (which is deducted from the Seller's net proceeds from the sale of the property), and how is it all allocated??  

Does the Listing Broker/Agent get to keep the entire 6% sales commission?  The answer is NO!  

Here is how it typically works:

• the entire 6% is taken from or deducted from the Seller's pocket or net proceeds.

• the Listing Broker/Agent will offer to "split" or share that commission with the Buyer Broker/Agent as a "reward" or an "incentive" for the buyer agent bringing a ready, able and willing buyer to the settlement table.

• that commission sharing or split will typically be half of whatever the Listing Broker/Agent is charging the Seller.

• if we assume that 6% sales commission is being charged to the Seller, then typically half of that (or 3%) is offered to the Buyer Broker/Agent.

• That leaves each side of the transaction with 3% of final settled sales price for each party's commission.  

• then each side's 3% is further split.

• real estate agent's have to share or split their commission with their broker for the "privilege" of doing business. (no other licensed profession, except real estate, that I am aware of requires a licensed professional to be "tethered" to a broker - an attorney fresh out of law school and having passed the bar exam with no trial experience whatsoever can open his own independent law firm or practice and is not required to be "tethered" to a managing or supervising lawyer "broker" or "split" his legal fees with a "legal broker" for example)

• depending on the split arrangement the real estate agent has with his broker the agent is institutionally forced to split or pay the broker a percentage of the commission they worked hard and on their own to get.  That split could be something like an 80/20 or 70/30 split whereby the agent keeps the 80% or 70%, then pays the broker the 20% or 30% for the privilege of doing business.  (agents pay brokers; brokers DO NOT pay agents).

Now, lets assume a house was sold for $500,000. Let's further assume the Seller is paying the Listing Broker/Agent 6% sales commission. Then, lets also assume that each agent in the transaction is on a 70/30 split with their respective brokers.  Here is how the commission is all divvied up:

• $500,000 X 6% sales commission =  $30,000  (that the Seller solely pays or is deducted from the net proceeds from the sale of the property)

• the settlement or escrow agent will divide that entire 6% (or the $30,000) between the Listing Broker/Agent and the Buyer Broker/Agent.  Each side gets $15,000.

• assuming each agent is on a 70/30 split, the $15,000 will be split 70% (or $10,500 to the actual agent who did all the work), and the agent pays his broker 30% (or $4,500) for the mere "privilege" of doing business or as an institutionalized "tax" or levy.  

Now I ask you.... regardless how all the money is ultimately divvied up; WHY SHOULD THE SELLER PAY THE BUYER AGENT/BROKER??!!  

Imagine if you were a litigant in a criminal or a civil law suit.  Should you be required to pay the prosecuting or State's attorney salary or pay the other party's lawyer in a civil law suit??!!  Of course not!  Then why should the Seller pay the Buyer Broker/Agent commission too?!

If the Buyer agent is being paid by the Seller, how can he serve two masters??!! (the Seller who is paying his commission AND concurrently the buyer client who he swears an agency fiduciary duty to).  In any other context or application, this would be a clear and gross legal conflict of interests.

The truth of the matter is; that you cannot serve two separate masters while trying to "protect and promote the best interests" of the party who you represent.

In order to have true and real fiduciary agency duty and loyalty to the buyer client, the agent representing the buyer should be paid his commission for his professional services directly from the buyer.... and NOT from the seller! 

If the Seller was not informally and institutionally mandated or required by the real estate profession to pay the buyer Broker/Agent's commission too, then the Seller could be offered much lower sales commission charge from the Listing Broker/Agent firm.

Furthermore, if the buyer was actually paying the buyer Broker/Agent commission directly, then the buyers would not play the games they do or be allowed to freely jump from agent to agent. There would be more accountability between prospective buyer and their agent.  Then there would be true buyer agency representation.

The "Exclusive Right to Represent Purchaser Agreement" (NVAR Form #K1338) that a buyer enters into with his broker/agent stipulates that the Buyer or Purchaser is already required or obligated to pay his broker/agent. The Compensation Clause or Paragraph of the Agreement (paragraph 9 - see below) states that only IF [not when] compensation is offered by the Seller, then the Buyer or Purchaser's obligation to pay his broker/agent commission fee is offset or credited by what is offered by the Seller [if any].  

 

The institutional "system" is clearly flawed and needs to be corrected whereby "prevailing practice" takes on a whole new and more meaningful definition of agency fiduciary duty and loyalty which is more consistent, congruent and parallel with the legal definition of an "agent" or "agency representation"   

A listing Broker/Agent who, when negotiating the commission they are charging for "their own services" to the prospective Seller; infers, implies, suggests that the Seller pay for the buyer Broker/Agent's commission too as a means of justifying the commission is actually engaging in the most egregious and nefarious violation of the provisions of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act law.   

A listing Broker/Agent may tell a prospective Seller they are trying to get the listing from that the total amount of the commission (or the commission percentage total) is not "fixed by the industry" and will tell the prospective Seller what they are being charged in commission for the professional services of the listing Broker/Agent firm to sell their house - however, the STRUCTURE (of the Seller being "forced" to also pay the buyer Broker/Agent firm too) is not typically disclosed and is being "hidden" or 'concealed" from the Seller or homeowner. This practice is therefore a "price structure fixing" by the industry and is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Remember, there is no legal or statutory mandate for the owner/seller of the property to also pay for the services of the buyer Broker/Agent firm too.  A listing Broker/Agent cannot tell a prospective home seller that, "we all have to participate in cooperative brokerage commission splitting - therefore, you have to pay the buyer's Broker/Agent commission too."  Any such utterance, inference or suggestion constitutes a gross and willful violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  

Moreover, the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics Article 3 stipulates:

• "Realtors shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client's best interests. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker."   

Is the Seller paying the buyer Broker/Agent commission really in the Seller's "best interests"?  Who should make that determination; the home owner or Seller, or the listing Broker/Agent?  

Certainly, the Seller having to also pay the buyer Broker/Agent firm commission too through "cooperative brokerage commissions splits" is clearly NOT in the Seller's best [financial] interests necessarily as that only REDUCES their net proceeds from the sale of the property. Doesn't the listing Broker/Agent firm have a duty to see that the property is marketed and sold in such a manner as to maximize (not minimize) the owner/Seller's net proceeds?  

The decision whether to offer "cooperative brokerage commission split" and having to pay the buyer Broker/Agent firm commission too should be left up to and made solely by the owner/Seller - after the listing Broker/Agent firm has advised and counseled the owner/Seller of their "non obligation" pursuant to Article 3 of the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics. 

How many listing Brokers/Agents actually inform or counsel the owner/Seller of this non-obligation? Doesn't the willful, intentional non-disclosure by the vast majority of listing Brokers/Agents constitute not only a gross violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics but more importantly, doesn't it also constitute "price structure fixing" for real estate services?  Of course it does. Therefore, failure to inform or counsel the owner/Seller of the their non-obligation to have to pay for the buyer Broker/Agent commission IS institutionalized "price structure fixing" and therefore IS a violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.      

If the owner/Seller knew or was fully informed that the listing Broker/Agent were under no obligation to split the total commission that is being charged to or coming out of the Seller's pocket, and if the Seller knew that part of the justification for the listing Broker/Agent firm to charge what they are asking for also includes a "hidden" or "concealed" cost to pay the buyer Broker/Agent commission too which is being passed onto the Seller and taken out of the Seller's pocket; what do you think the Seller would say?  

The Seller would naturally and logically say and conclude that it was NOT necessarily in their best [financial] interests to be asked or expected to pay for or be "charged" for paying the buyer Broker/Agent commission too.  It would then logically follow that if the Seller did NOT have to pay for, be "charged", or "billed" for paying the buyer Broker/Agent commission (which they are NOT obligated to do), then the listing Broker/Agent firm would not have to charge then 5-6% sales commission since they are only likely getting half of that anyway (2.5-3% commission).  

If the Seller's cost to their listing Broker/Agent firm for selling the house was only what they would be receiving anyway (the 2.5-3%), then their net proceeds after sale would be HIGHER since they are not being institutionally "forced" or being "charged" or "billed" for picking up the tab for the buyer Broker/Agent commission too.

If the Seller was fully informed up front:

• how all the commission would be ultimately divvied up (which they are being asked or expected to solely pay for), and

• was informed of their non-obligation to have to pay for the buyer Broker/Agent firm commission, and

• was informed of the Realtors' Code of Ethics Article 3 stipulation that their listing Broker/Agent was ALSO under no obligation to "cooperate when it was NOT in their client's best [financial] interests" and,

• was informed that their listing Broker/Agent's obligation to cooperate with other Realtors was a mere professional "courtesy" and DOES NOT create an obligation by the listing Broker/Agent firm to split commission charged to their Seller client and split that commission with the buyer Broker/Agent, and

• was informed that the Buyer or Purchaser was ALREADY obligated to pay his own broker/agent commission or "Broker's Fee" directly for their services;

what do you think the prospective owner/Seller would say? They would most likely say something to the effect of, 

"Hell NO, I'm not going to pay for the other Broker/Agent too, let their client pay them just like I would be paying you ... they have already agreed to pay their own broker/agent, so why should I pay that for them then ??!! - Furthermore, why are YOU (potential listing agent) asking me or expecting me to do this ??!!"

So, isn't the intentional and willful "concealment" of the truth and facts about real estate commissions and the obligations AND non-obligations of ALL parties involved in a transaction with regard to "cooperative brokerage commission splitting" an act of price structure fixing??? 

If you answer yes to this question, then your potential listing Broker/Agent firm are BOTH jointly and severally guilty of not only federal Sherman Antitrust Act violations but ALSO gross and egregious violations of the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics.

Interestingly, the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors (NVAR) publishes form # NVAR K1297 entitled, "Useful Information About Real Estate Transactions."  This form or "disclosure" is given to either the buyer (in a buyer agency transaction) or to the seller (in a listing or selling transaction).  The respective buyer AND seller are both asked to sign this disclosure form by each of their respective real estate agents.

Let's take a look at that form now (I'll do that for you so I don't have to copy the entire text here) and let's see if there is any "useful information" or any "disclosure" with regard to how real estate commissions are split or shared and all divvied up between buyer broker/agent and listing or selling broker/agent.  That would indeed be very "useful information about real estate transactions", correct?

The form covers these headings and topics:

• REALTORS -  defines what a "Realtor" is. 
• SERVICES -  describes or defines what type of services Realtors can perform.
• LEGAL REQUIREMENTS - advises both buyer and seller party (separately) that in order to be enforeceable, all contracts for real property must be in writing.
• FINANCING - information about mortgage financing and title insurance.
• HAZARD INSURANCE - advises both buyers and sellers (separately) about lender requirements for hazard or homeowner insurance as well as flood insurance too.
• MASTER PLANS - advises buyers that they should review local jurisdiction or county master plans or land use zoning maps to see ot only current, but more importantly, FUTURE land use or projects that could affect the buyers home of choice.
• PROPERTY CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS - advises buyers that they can and should make a home inspection and/or other environmental type of inspections a contingency in their contract offer.
• HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY INFORMATION - advises buyers that they should get an "energy audit" done on the home they are considering buying to be fully informed of the property's energy or utilities consumption efficiency.  
• RESPONSIBILITY - advises both buyer and seller (separately) to read all documents they are provided "to be sure that the terms accurately express the understanding of the parties as to their intentions and the agreement they have reached."
• TYPES OF REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION - talks about different types of representation, confidentiality of information and duties of Realtors when representing either buyer or seller. 

You will note that the above NVAR form #NVAR - K1297 "Useful Information About Real Estate Transactions" says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how Realtors are compensated and how real estate commissions are all divvied up between buyer broker/agent and seller broker/agent.  Isn't this a material part of how real estate transactions work?  Yes, of course it is!  Who pays for what is a key component of a real estate sales transaction.

Then why would the Association of Realtors leave this most relevant and germane aspect of how real estate sales transactions work hidden or concealed from the public?!

Let's go back to the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics.

• Article 1 - says Realtors have to treat all parties "honestly"
• Article 2 - says Realtors shall refrain from exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts related to property or transaction.    
• Article 3 - says Realtors shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client's best interests. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker."
• Article 7 - says that Realtors may receive compensation from only one party (but the seller is expected WITHOUT BEING INFORMED that they should or will be paying both listing broker/agent AND buyer broker/agent commissions?!)
• Article 12 - says that Realtors should "paint a true picture" in advertising or representations.

I could very easily make a legal case that the [willful & intentional] concealment by NVAR about anything related to how real estate commissions work between brokers from their own form entitled "Useful Information About Real Estate Transactions" (which is given to both buyer and seller in a sales transaction conducted by or through a Realtor) is:

1) an act of concealement,

2) an act of gross misrepresentation of pertinent facts (in this case a complete and entire OMISSION of pertinent facts relating to how real estate commissions work),

3) an act of NOT being completely honest,  

4) an act of failing to "paint a true picture",

5) an act of concealment of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics from both seller and buyer,

6) an act of engaging in price structure fixing (which is a violation of the Federal Sherman Antitrust Act)

7) an act of grossly and egregiously violating its very own Code of Ethics.


What's more disturbing is the fact that these acts of concealment and omissions are not just an isolated occurrence of "oops I forgot to tell them that" - but is a MASS, widespread and standardized practice.  

Yet another example of institutionalized "price structure fixing" by the industry is the Multiple Listing Service or "MLS" database where a Realtor or licensee enters all the information on a house they are selling so that other Realtors or licensees can see what houses are for sale to assist their buyer client in finding a suitable home to purchase.  Policy Statement 7.23 of the National Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Handbook states,

"in filing a property with the multiple listing service of a Board of REALTORS, the participant makes a blanket, unilateral offer of compensation to the other MLS participants and shall therefore specify on each listing filed with the service the compensation being offered by the listing broker to the other MLS participants.  

What this states in plain English is basically that if a Realtor enters a home for sale in the MLS system, then they must or shall "therefore" offer "unilateral compensation" to other participating buyer brokers.  Not only is this illegal for a third party service provider such as MLS to dictate the terms of sale that are being offered by a Seller through their listing agent/broker, but is also contrary to the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics Article 3 which once more states clearly and unambiguously,

"Realtors shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client's best interests. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker." 

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) cannot repudiate or nullify Article 3 of its own Code of Ethics by subsequently turning right around in a "Policy Statement" contained in a "Handbook on the use of the MLS" which negates or nullifies, or is in any way inconsistent with, Article 3 of the Code of Ethics.  

The one negating, abrogating or repudiating caveat to my aforementioned argument or a Seller's objection to the "cooperative commission sharing" structure or arrangement outlined above would be this question to a prospective home Seller: When you bought your home were you represented by a buyer broker/agent; and if so, was your obligation to pay your buyer broker/agent's commission paid by the Seller when you bought your home??  

If the answer to this question is yes, and they didn't object to this "system" or "arrangement" before and received this benefit in the transaction, then why would they object now when they're on the flip-side of that arrangement??  "Somebody [the Seller] paid YOUR buyer broker/agent fee for you when you bought your house so you would not incur the buyer broker/agent fee as an out-of-pocket expense (and may have additionally made other concessions to you or made additional contributions to your closing costs), so why would you object now in participating in the same scheme or arrangement?"           

 

 

 
             

Residential Construction & Remodeling Performance Standards Guidebook

This is a great reference resource for anyone doing any home construction or remodeling project so you know what the acceptable performance standards are of the contractor performing the work on your property.

Click here to order a copy

 

About This Book:

*IMPORTANT UPDATE: “The fourth edition of Residential Performance Guidelines will be released on August 16, 2010. The fourth edition should be used for all contracts written after August 16, 2010. Contracts written prior to August 16, 2010, can still reference the third edition.” >

This objective reference can help builders and remodelers prevent and resolve customer complaints.

Sold in packs of 10.NAHB's Residential Construction Performance Guidelines were created to offer a third-party view of quality issues in residential construction (both new homes and remodeling).

The guidelines help define the point when a potential warranty item requires corrective action. Thousands of successful builders use the guidelines to lower their warranty costs by reducing inappropriate claims.

Includes Residential Construction Performance Guidelines for:

•  Site Work and Foundation


•  Floors, Walls, and Roofs


•  Plumbing and Electrical, including Interior Climate Control


•  Interior and Floor Finishes


•  Fireplace and Wood Stove


•  Concrete Stoops and Steps


•  Garage, Driveways, and Sidewalks


•  Wood Decks


•  Landscaping

A Glossary and Index are also included.

Now the Residential Construction Performance Guidelines Consumer Reference makes it easy to provide a copy of the guidelines to every customer. Sold in affordable packs of 10, the Consumer Reference is a great addition to your warranty claims process and lets you:

• Help customers understand the basics of a properly constructed home and how it should perform during the warranty


• Prevent and resolve customer complaints without having to resort to arbitration or litigation


• Show prospects that you are a professional who consistently builds to meet or exceed accepted industry guidelines

To build customer satisfaction and boost your bottom line, you'll want to provide a copy of the Consumer Reference with every home you build!

Mortgage Loan Application Documents Needed

Here is a list of the typical documents that your mortgage lender or mortgage broker will require in connection with your application for mortgage financing for either; first time home buyer, trade-up, trade-down, or in connection with a refinance (ReFi).  

Congressional "Consumer Confidence" Index - Fiscal Cliff Economics

Fiscal Cliff - Economics of the U.S. Congress

This is how American politics.. uhm, I mean ECONOMICS works.  Absolutely sickening!  

As I have opined numerous times; people get all worked up up national elections (i.e. Obama vs. Romney) and put their little yard signs out and bumper stickers on in support of one candidate or another, then 5 things happen after each and every national election:

1. the American tax paying public falls alseep for another 4 years during the political "off-season".
2. the American public does not get involved in local and state level politics by and large.
3. by doing #1 & 2 above and totally acquiescing, the American tax paying public allows 545 members of Congress (who actually do run this country) to have total impunity and do whatever the #@&% they want!   
4. the direct and proximate result of #'s 1-3 above is the proliferation of "lobbying" and special interest groups and HUGE campaign donations which take precedent over and "out-trump" the mass populace's best interests.
5. special interest or "lobbying" groups get their needs and interests favorably granted through Congress sneaking legislation favorable to their "constituents" into a completely unrelated Bill as a "rider" or an "addendum".  

You would think that their "constituents" are actually the taxpayers and citizens in their respective Congressional districts who they have a legal, moral and ethical agency and fiduciary duty to represent; but instead, their true "constituents" are actually the special interest lobbying groups who donate huge sums to their political campaigns and self-serving ambitions.    

This is exactly what Congress wants you to do.  Focus all your attention on one person (the President) and turn a blind eye towards them; allowing them to run this country amok any which way they desire or see fit, or which benefits THEM (not us, the taxpayers and true constituents) directly, of course.

Their ethics and behavioir are totally unscrupulous and unconscionable.  If you or I engaged in these same shenanigans, we would be called "sociopaths".  But they are called "Honorable" or "Congressman".    

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article in today's news:

The 11th-hour deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff preserved billions of dollars in corporate tax giveaways even as it slashed take-home pay for millions of American workers.

Tucked inside the last-minute fiscal cliff package were more than a dozen tax loopholes, many of which will benefit Wall Street financial firms and some of the nation's biggest corporations. These breaks will cost billions of dollars in the coming year, underscoring the lobbying power of corporate interests.

The deal was less kind to the middle class. Congress permitted a cut in the payroll tax to expire, meaning that the tax burden for the average worker will increase about $1,000 in 2013.

"This shows that the lobbyists are able to get what they want even when everyone else is starving," said Phineas Baxandall, senior analyst for tax and budget policy at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "It also shows they are best able to get what they want when no one else is paying attention."

The corporate loopholes were part of a package of so-called tax extenders tacked onto the main bill. The extenders package, first approved by the Senate in early August, mixes popular benefits, like a deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies, with corporate-friendly carve-outs, such as the "active financing" exception that permits businesses earning interest on overseas lending to defer U.S. taxes on that income indefinitely. There is even a tax break for construction of new racetracks.

The tax extenders were passed for only one year, and they still need to clear another potential hurdle: upcoming negotiations over mandated spending cuts and the debt ceiling. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have indicated they'd like to see a "grand bargain" on taxes, which would feature lower overall rates but close a slew of loopholes.

The financial services industry, whose leaders had earlier joined a group of other corporate executives pushing for a "fair" solution to the fiscal crisis, is one of the primary beneficiaries of special-interest tax breaks. The active-financing exception, for example, permits banks like Morgan Stanley to avoid the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on interest income from money lent overseas. A handful of other U.S.-based multinational companies with financing arms, such as Ford Motor Co. and General Electric, also use that exemption to lower their tax bills. The two-year cost to taxpayers is an estimated $11.2 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

U.S. financial institutions argue that the active-financing exemption is necessary for them to compete in overseas markets with foreign banks that carry a lower tax burden. The loophole was repealed in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, but was reinstated in 1997 as a temporary measure after fierce lobbying by multinational corporations.

The exemption belongs to a small group of boutique corporate tax loopholes that are worth a lot of money to a relative handful of corporations. It even has its own lobbying coalition, the Active Finance Working Group, which serves as a prime example of how important the 20 or so companies that benefit from the exemption consider it. Founded in 2005, the group was quiet during the last few years of the Bush administration, but roared to life again in 2009.

That year, the coalition retained the services of former top Democratic congressional aide-turned-lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, whose firm, Elmendorf Ryan, has earned more than $1.2 million in lobbying fees from the working group in the past four years. Lobbying disclosure reports reveal that the coalition was housed in the same office as Elmendorf Ryan and that the coalition's lobbyists had just one task: protect the active-financing exemption.

In Elmendorf's firm, the Active Finance Working Group has a top-flight team: All eight of the Elmendorf Ryan lobbyists working on the issue in late 2012 were former congressional staffers, most with ties to powerful lawmakers, including to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the financial services industry paid an average effective tax rate of 15.5 percent from 2008 to 2010, far lower than that of most other industries.

As part of the fiscal cliff deal, Congress also extended another little-known tax break that benefits large multinationals selling products through overseas affiliates. This "pass-through" exemption permits a U.S.-based company to set up a new corporation in a tax haven like the Cayman Islands and sell it a patent owned by the U.S. parent company. Royalties on overseas licensing of that patent would then route to the tax-sheltered firm, instead of the U.S. parent company. The Joint Committee on Taxation says the two-year cost of extending this shelter is $1.5 billion.

One of the more unusual tax benefits in the fiscal cliff legislation is a longstanding carve-out for racetracks used by NASCAR.

Since 2004, Congress has passed a series of stopgap measures that allow owners of motorsports complexes to accelerate their depreciation expenses. This means that owners can deduct more in expenses, reducing the taxes they must pay.

Track owners and NASCAR together have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for the tax benefit over the past five years, according to lobbying disclosure forms. The International Speedway Corp., which owns and manages NASCAR race tracks, has spent more than $1.1 million lobbying Congress since 2008. Over the same period, NASCAR spent more than $300,000 on lobbying efforts, which included a push to "make permanent the depreciation classification."

Supporters in Congress and industry groups have argued that the tax break is necessary to "maintain the current standard expected by our competitors and fans." According to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the so-called NASCAR loophole will cost taxpayers $46 million this year and an additional $95 million through 2017.

A spokesman for the International Speedway Corp., Charles Talbert, said the industry is simply seeking to preserve a tax designation it has relied on for years. He said in an email that racetracks had always used the accelerated depreciation schedule, but Congress had specifically written it into law after the Internal Revenue Service argued that it was improper in the early 2000s.

Though Congress was willing to sign off on all these business-friendly goodies, legislative leaders couldn't muster enthusiasm for extending the payroll tax holiday, which had cost the federal government $120 billion each year in lost revenue.

As a result, a worker who earns $50,000 a year will now pay at least $80 per month in taxes. The payroll tax increase will affect as many as 160 million people.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story overstated the cost of the business tax extenders.

When Is the Best Time to Buy Your Airline Ticket?

 
The best time to book your flight is on a Tuesday, at least 8 weeks (2 months) before your intended trip; however, there are also last minute travel deals as well if you are prepared to up and go within days of booking your flight.  

The days of the week that you depart and arrive on also make a big difference. Generally speaking, try to avoid leaving out and returning home on a weekend day.  

The time of day can also be a factor as well. You might find that a "red-eye flight" (leaving at night and arriving in the morning - or conversely leaving at the crack of dawn and arriving at night) may give you a better fare than leaving during the middle of the day.  Be flexible with your days and times if at all possible.

Unless you're booking some last minute travel deal, booking a flight less than 2 full weeks prior to departure will be the most expensive.  Also, remember the "Goldilocks Rule" of air travel; don't book too early and definitely don't book to late.   
 

(this does not constitute an endorsement for Bank of America)

Here are some other tips:

Travel Midweek 

International travel deals are entirely based on availability and since most people travel over the weekend (Friday & Saturday); you will find the cheapest international airfare deals if you travel midweek, usually departing and returning on a Tuesday or Wednesday. 

Spend Saturday night  

Business travelers fly home on the weekend, so most discounted international airfare deals require a Saturday night stay.  So be prepared to spend Saturday at your destination (party time!)  

Don’t book too Early or Too Late  

When it comes to cheap international airfares, you have to follow the Goldilocks rule: Don’t book too early or too late. We all know that an international ticket booked with less than 3 days notice will be very expensive, but it will also be pricy if you book too far in advance. Most airlines start competing for passengers around three to four months before departure; this is known as the “Goldilocks Zone”. Search for your international airfare about three to five months out and you will be in the best position to hit the international airfare deal jackpot.  

Fly Trough the Side Door  

If your desired destination is sold out (too expensive), try flying out of a secondary international airport (Boston vs JFK or San Francisco vs Los Angeles). The same works with your destination airports; If London is sold out (expensive), try Brussels, Amsterdam or even Stuttgart. You can use the savings to book a low cost inter Europe flight to London or you can jump on the Eurostar train from Paris or Brussels.  

Fly Seasonally  

Most budget travelers never fly during high season. They take advantage of the lower airfares and decent weather during the ‘shoulder season’.  Europe’s fall shoulder season starts around September 15^th and extends until the middle of November. It’s spring shoulder season starts in mid February and extends until the end of April. For the cheapest deals to New Zealand and Australia, fly in mid August, their fall and winters are quite mild and still allow you to enjoy the many outdoor adventures available Down Under. For Asia, fly from late September through November to get the lowest airfare deals. South America’s low season is anytime it’s not Christmas, New Year’s, Carnival or a school holiday.  

Use the Multiple Flights Function  

Vayama has a ‘multiple flights’ function on it’s ‘find a flight’ box. It’s a good idea to use it because it may be cheaper to fly into one city and return from another (for example; New York to London, returning from Amsterdam).  Play around with different combinations and save.  

Add a Stopover and Save  

Direct flights (those with one stop) are also cheaper than nonstop flights, particularly when you fly long haul. For example the fares for a New York to Johannesburg flight will be cheaper on airlines that add a stopover (usually in Europe, Africa or the Middle East) versus the nonstop option from New York. The same applies to long haul flights to Asia. One stop in Seoul or Taipei could shave hundreds of dollars off an India trip when compared to nonstop flights.

Realtors Property Resource Program

This is a great program