Page 308 of 321 FirstFirst ... 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 ... LastLast
Results 7,676 to 7,700 of 8002
  1. #7676
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    6,306
    You’re Canadian, so it’s a good choice. But low elevation and potentially Smokey summers are keeping me at 8000ft in the RFV.

    They’re will always be dips and hopefully that’s when your buying.
    Buying is when you have the most leverage and your decisions will have the most effect on your final ROI.

    Buy something unique, that can’t be easily duplicated. I’d probably be looking at lake front, near Whistler or the Powder Hwy.

  2. #7677
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,847
    Well here we go. Looks like we get to bail out some of the lucky bastards that got to have beach property for at least a portion of their time.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...e-florida-keys

  3. #7678
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    11,245
    I've reached my limit and they're onto incognito. Cliff notes?
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  4. #7679
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post
    I've reached my limit and they're onto incognito. Cliff notes?
    People on the coast are fucked unless they are up on a hill or bluff.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  5. #7680
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    People on the coast are fucked unless they are up on a hill or bluff.
    Even if they were, everything else around them will be underwater. Good time to buy an airboat?

  6. #7681
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,847
    I’ll admit I didn’t make it to the end of the article, but from the first half, sounds like they are getting million dollar gov cash buyouts. No?

  7. #7682
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,180
    And soon they will be shopping here...
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  8. #7683
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,380

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  9. #7684
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    by Allan Sloan Oct. 10, 5 a.m. EDT

    Daniel Savage, special to ProPublica

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.

    This story was co-published with Fortune.

    Lamle’s model isn’t applicable to most people because it works only for taxpayers with a household income of at least $200,000 a year who paid at least $1 million for their homes. But the principle underlying Lamle’s model applies to everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one. To wit: You calculate the tax-law-caused loss of value by figuring out how much a house’s price needs to fall for buyers’ or owners’ after-tax costs to be the same now as they were before the tax law changed.

    “People buying large-ticket items typically focus on after-tax costs of ownership,” Lamle told me. “The amount that many buyers can afford is affected by limits on their financial resources. Therefore, as their tax costs increase substantially because of the loss of tax deductions, they have less money available to pay for homes and to take on mortgage debt.”

    At the suggestion of one of my editors, I asked Lamle to use a modified version of his economic model to estimate the tax law’s impact on the value of a theoretical house in the New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very high by national standards — but middle class by the standards of large parts of suburban Essex County.

    Real estate tax on that theoretical house would run about $28,900 a year, according to statistics from the New Jersey state treasurer’s office. That tax used to be fully deductible for federal tax purposes. Now, it’s not deductible at all if you assume that the house’s owners are taking the standard deduction on their federal returns. Or that even if they’re itemizing deductions, they’re paying at least $10,000 of state income taxes, which means they don’t get any benefit from deducting property taxes.

    According to Lamle’s calculations, this inability to deduct real estate tax has reduced the home’s value by $138,720, assuming a 5% mortgage rate. At a 4% rate, the value loss is $173,400. (For the math and assumptions underlying these numbers, see his methodology below.) So if the family put up $200,000 — 25% of the purchase price — to buy the house, more than half of that investment has been wiped out.

    Obviously, it’s impossible to prove that Zandi and Lamle are right about the impact they say the tax law is having (and will continue to have) on home prices, because there’s no way to gauge the accuracy of their numbers. But the logic is compelling.


    Real Estate Taxes of almost $29k a year for a $800k property Fuck me! I will never say anything bad about what I pay in CA ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  10. #7685
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,380
    Yeah, it's really bad in NJ and Westchester. The market was still down to stagnant since the crash, and this tax bill has really hurt. And, like it or not, but this is the middle class getting hit.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  11. #7686
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Stu Gotz View Post
    In 75 years when the SW and the Gulf Coast become unlivable, NE real estate will regain its value. Just a question of getting the kids to keep ye ol’ homestead.
    Oh, and, just to update, they don't have to turn off the electricity so that hundreds don't die in uncontrollable flash fires.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  12. #7687
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cb, co
    Posts
    3,648
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post

    Real Estate Taxes of almost $29k a year for a $800k property Fuck me! I will never say anything bad about what I pay in CA ever.
    When TX buyers ask me about taxes on the properties they're looking at here in CO, they often say "Is that per month?". Then I say, "no, that's per year" and then they laugh and don't worry about the taxes.

  13. #7688
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    21,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Oh, and, just to update, they don't have to turn off the electricity so that hundreds don't die in uncontrollable flash fires.
    Yet. 75 years from now, I'm not willing to bet.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin

  14. #7689
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,380
    Dude, we don't live in a place surrounded by dry tinder. And, it was that way a hundred years ago out there. Everybody moves to a dry place, settles in, and then get all freaked out when the world burns. But, the surfing is good, right?

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  15. #7690
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    11,245
    Stayed in an Air BnB in Ft Collins last week. Piece of shit, under maintained McMansion owned by a scammer who owned a few more. 5 BR sleeps 14. No hangers or deck chairs. ABnB is propping up the McMansion housing market but to what extent? 2 other houses on the Cul de Sac were unoccupied.
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  16. #7691
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Joisey
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Yeah, it's really bad in NJ and Westchester. The market was still down to stagnant since the crash, and this tax bill has really hurt. And, like it or not, but this is the middle class getting hit.
    Middle class more so. Households that were paying AMT prior to the tax law changes weren’t significantly impacted as they already had limited deductions.
    Because rich has nothing to do with money.

  17. #7692
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New Haven Line heading north
    Posts
    2,701
    After all is said and done, I am guessing the home values in my town will bottom at ~40% off ‘07/‘08 highs.
    Charlie, here comes the deuce. And when you speak of me, speak well.

  18. #7693
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Queen City North Carolina
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    by Allan Sloan Oct. 10, 5 a.m. EDT

    Daniel Savage, special to ProPublica

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.

    This story was co-published with Fortune.

    Lamle’s model isn’t applicable to most people because it works only for taxpayers with a household income of at least $200,000 a year who paid at least $1 million for their homes. But the principle underlying Lamle’s model applies to everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one. To wit: You calculate the tax-law-caused loss of value by figuring out how much a house’s price needs to fall for buyers’ or owners’ after-tax costs to be the same now as they were before the tax law changed.

    “People buying large-ticket items typically focus on after-tax costs of ownership,” Lamle told me. “The amount that many buyers can afford is affected by limits on their financial resources. Therefore, as their tax costs increase substantially because of the loss of tax deductions, they have less money available to pay for homes and to take on mortgage debt.”

    At the suggestion of one of my editors, I asked Lamle to use a modified version of his economic model to estimate the tax law’s impact on the value of a theoretical house in the New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very high by national standards — but middle class by the standards of large parts of suburban Essex County.

    Real estate tax on that theoretical house would run about $28,900 a year, according to statistics from the New Jersey state treasurer’s office. That tax used to be fully deductible for federal tax purposes. Now, it’s not deductible at all if you assume that the house’s owners are taking the standard deduction on their federal returns. Or that even if they’re itemizing deductions, they’re paying at least $10,000 of state income taxes, which means they don’t get any benefit from deducting property taxes.

    According to Lamle’s calculations, this inability to deduct real estate tax has reduced the home’s value by $138,720, assuming a 5% mortgage rate. At a 4% rate, the value loss is $173,400. (For the math and assumptions underlying these numbers, see his methodology below.) So if the family put up $200,000 — 25% of the purchase price — to buy the house, more than half of that investment has been wiped out.

    Obviously, it’s impossible to prove that Zandi and Lamle are right about the impact they say the tax law is having (and will continue to have) on home prices, because there’s no way to gauge the accuracy of their numbers. But the logic is compelling.


    Real Estate Taxes of almost $29k a year for a $800k property Fuck me! I will never say anything bad about what I pay in CA ever.
    So when these tax cuts went into affect and it was framed as only helping wealthy people, is the rest of america supposed to feel bad for the supposedly non-wealthy 250k per year citizens in $800k dollar homes?
    I mean more than half of them support Bernie and Warren, so whats the problem with paying more in taxes? Both potential candidates have proposed increasing the marginal tax rates at about the same equivalent on the income side of things at 250k per year. So you either deduct back the 29k you pay locally to reduce the federal side of things but pay more %, or pay a lower percent with less deductions.
    Even people in poor old NC are getting pinched with having to take the standard deductions vs itemizing, but I fail to see that a good platform exists to convince the masses anywhere to help those of us lucky to make the numbers used in this study.
    You can't harp on wanting to increase taxes on wealthy people and then cry when you can't see 250k per year and a 800k house makes you wealthy to at least 95% of the country.

  19. #7694
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,380
    You've been in the woods too long. These are middle class families getting hit. The real wage slaves on the high end. Big consumers, but, hardly wealthy.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  20. #7695
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Queen City North Carolina
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    You've been in the woods too long. These are middle class families getting hit. The real wage slaves on the high end. Big consumers, but, hardly wealthy.
    Actually, you need to leave the area around upper Westchester and Greenwich CT and realize that quite literally 95% of americans don't make anything close to 250k a year and don't live in 800k homes. Not even remotely close.
    I'd argue that the multitude of folks in all the post industrial cities in CT and upstate NY don't give a crap either. You're quite literally arguing that except for a small subset of geographic area of America that a W2 wage of 250k is middle class and a national tax policy should make accommodation for them.
    It can't be more than 5% of the country in that bracket earning that much.
    The real money doesn't care either. What they will raise a fit about is Bernie or Warren getting the nomination and the fear of elimination of loss carry forward, regular income tax on interest and other big money tricks.
    I will guarantee your banking limousine liberals will not endorse a Dem candidate outside of Biden. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes at the end of the day.
    Hence why Florida has overtaken NY in population.

  21. #7696
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,970
    plenty of people pay higher taxes if they have more opportunity to make money. you know - kinda the reason why all those people were living in the high tax dumps in the first place? but then the jobs kinda went.

  22. #7697
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Queen City North Carolina
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    plenty of people pay higher taxes if they have more opportunity to make money. you know - kinda the reason why all those people were living in the high tax dumps in the first place? but then the jobs kinda went.
    I would. What I wouldn’t do is insult people and say 250k and an 800k house is middle class.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #7698
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by ncskier View Post
    Actually, you need to leave the area around upper Westchester and Greenwich CT and realize that quite literally 95% of americans don't make anything close to 250k a year and don't live in 800k homes. Not even remotely close.
    I'd argue that the multitude of folks in all the post industrial cities in CT and upstate NY don't give a crap either. You're quite literally arguing that except for a small subset of geographic area of America that a W2 wage of 250k is middle class and a national tax policy should make accommodation for them.
    It can't be more than 5% of the country in that bracket earning that much.
    The real money doesn't care either. What they will raise a fit about is Bernie or Warren getting the nomination and the fear of elimination of loss carry forward, regular income tax on interest and other big money tricks.
    I will guarantee your banking limousine liberals will not endorse a Dem candidate outside of Biden. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes at the end of the day.
    Hence why Florida has overtaken NY in population.

    Those blue states support the the rest of the country (and don't get much in return):

    Federal Income Tax Paid per Capita:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	per capita.png 
Views:	96 
Size:	38.7 KB 
ID:	297837

  24. #7699
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wet and Mild
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by ncskier View Post
    I would. What I wouldn’t do is insult people and say 250k and an 800k house is middle class.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That certainly only qualifies you for modest middle class standing anywhere in the Emerald Corridor, or most of California, or Boston, or the Denver/Boulder Metro Area, or greater Chicago, or Minneapolis, or Atlanta, or really anywhere that isn't full of critter-buggering white trash and actually has more than a handful of "morning shower" jobs.
    Set my compass North, I got Winter in my blood.

  25. #7700
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Queen City North Carolina
    Posts
    886

    Real Estate Crash thread

    Quote Originally Posted by oldblue View Post
    Those blue states support the the rest of the country (and don't get much in return):

    Federal Income Tax Paid per Capita:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	per capita.png 
Views:	96 
Size:	38.7 KB 
ID:	297837
    You also probably threw up in your mouth when mitt Romney said 49% of Americans don’t pay taxes.
    If you make big money, pay big taxes. I pointed out nc flat tax and the regressive crowd came out with pitch forks.
    All I’m reading is “rich people should pay more, but I want to move the goalposts to what qualifies as rich”
    Are you proposing the deplorables you mention pay more?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •