Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Distribution of Wealth in SD County
- This topic has 715 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
jimmyle.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM #553209May 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM #552247
an
ParticipantSorry, 1994 is not 2010. Your rant/lecture is pointing at the wrong person. I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it. I do think outside the box. But my outside the box thinking is different than your outside the box thinking. If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either. Here’s a tract home for you, I know how much you love to rail on tract homes: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090068736-481_Santa_Dominga_Solana_Beach_CA_92075 Something like this probably sold in 1994 for around $300k too.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, active income and passive income are both incomes. However, active income can be fleeting and out of one’s control. Properly planned passive income is always there.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]In my mind, wealth has almost NOTHING to do with income and everything to do with assets.[/quote]
So, is income has NOTHING to do with wealth or does it have EVERYTHING to do with wealth? Passive or active, they’re both INCOME. What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.
[quote=bearishgurl]In most cases, this is true, AN, but many tens of thousands of property owners in CA inherited valuable propery and are living in it on a relatively low income and oftentimes on government assistance or SS. Many of these heirs never went to college and some never worked. Because they own free and clear, they could be considered to have a high net worth. As long as Prop 13 stays on the books the way it is written, this phenomenon will remain.[/quote]
Did you read my statement? how did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?May 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM #552354ParticipantSorry, 1994 is not 2010. Your rant/lecture is pointing at the wrong person. I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it. I do think outside the box. But my outside the box thinking is different than your outside the box thinking. If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either. Here’s a tract home for you, I know how much you love to rail on tract homes: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090068736-481_Santa_Dominga_Solana_Beach_CA_92075 Something like this probably sold in 1994 for around $300k too.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, active income and passive income are both incomes. However, active income can be fleeting and out of one’s control. Properly planned passive income is always there.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]In my mind, wealth has almost NOTHING to do with income and everything to do with assets.[/quote]
So, is income has NOTHING to do with wealth or does it have EVERYTHING to do with wealth? Passive or active, they’re both INCOME. What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.
[quote=bearishgurl]In most cases, this is true, AN, but many tens of thousands of property owners in CA inherited valuable propery and are living in it on a relatively low income and oftentimes on government assistance or SS. Many of these heirs never went to college and some never worked. Because they own free and clear, they could be considered to have a high net worth. As long as Prop 13 stays on the books the way it is written, this phenomenon will remain.[/quote]
Did you read my statement? how did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?May 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM #552841ParticipantSorry, 1994 is not 2010. Your rant/lecture is pointing at the wrong person. I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it. I do think outside the box. But my outside the box thinking is different than your outside the box thinking. If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either. Here’s a tract home for you, I know how much you love to rail on tract homes: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090068736-481_Santa_Dominga_Solana_Beach_CA_92075 Something like this probably sold in 1994 for around $300k too.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, active income and passive income are both incomes. However, active income can be fleeting and out of one’s control. Properly planned passive income is always there.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]In my mind, wealth has almost NOTHING to do with income and everything to do with assets.[/quote]
So, is income has NOTHING to do with wealth or does it have EVERYTHING to do with wealth? Passive or active, they’re both INCOME. What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.
[quote=bearishgurl]In most cases, this is true, AN, but many tens of thousands of property owners in CA inherited valuable propery and are living in it on a relatively low income and oftentimes on government assistance or SS. Many of these heirs never went to college and some never worked. Because they own free and clear, they could be considered to have a high net worth. As long as Prop 13 stays on the books the way it is written, this phenomenon will remain.[/quote]
Did you read my statement? how did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?May 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM #552939ParticipantSorry, 1994 is not 2010. Your rant/lecture is pointing at the wrong person. I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it. I do think outside the box. But my outside the box thinking is different than your outside the box thinking. If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either. Here’s a tract home for you, I know how much you love to rail on tract homes: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090068736-481_Santa_Dominga_Solana_Beach_CA_92075 Something like this probably sold in 1994 for around $300k too.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, active income and passive income are both incomes. However, active income can be fleeting and out of one’s control. Properly planned passive income is always there.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]In my mind, wealth has almost NOTHING to do with income and everything to do with assets.[/quote]
So, is income has NOTHING to do with wealth or does it have EVERYTHING to do with wealth? Passive or active, they’re both INCOME. What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.
[quote=bearishgurl]In most cases, this is true, AN, but many tens of thousands of property owners in CA inherited valuable propery and are living in it on a relatively low income and oftentimes on government assistance or SS. Many of these heirs never went to college and some never worked. Because they own free and clear, they could be considered to have a high net worth. As long as Prop 13 stays on the books the way it is written, this phenomenon will remain.[/quote]
Did you read my statement? how did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?May 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM #553219ParticipantSorry, 1994 is not 2010. Your rant/lecture is pointing at the wrong person. I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it. I do think outside the box. But my outside the box thinking is different than your outside the box thinking. If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either. Here’s a tract home for you, I know how much you love to rail on tract homes: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090068736-481_Santa_Dominga_Solana_Beach_CA_92075 Something like this probably sold in 1994 for around $300k too.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, active income and passive income are both incomes. However, active income can be fleeting and out of one’s control. Properly planned passive income is always there.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]In my mind, wealth has almost NOTHING to do with income and everything to do with assets.[/quote]
So, is income has NOTHING to do with wealth or does it have EVERYTHING to do with wealth? Passive or active, they’re both INCOME. What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.
[quote=bearishgurl]In most cases, this is true, AN, but many tens of thousands of property owners in CA inherited valuable propery and are living in it on a relatively low income and oftentimes on government assistance or SS. Many of these heirs never went to college and some never worked. Because they own free and clear, they could be considered to have a high net worth. As long as Prop 13 stays on the books the way it is written, this phenomenon will remain.[/quote]
Did you read my statement? how did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM #552282bearishgurl
Participant[quote=AN]If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either.[/quote] (emphasis added)
Having 50K in 1994 would not have been enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
AN, you seem a little defensive. FWIW, you can consult other Piggs on this, but the “bottom of the last cycle” was Fall 1997. The “top of the current bubble” was Fall 2005. I wasn’t even thinking about “cycles” at the time when this thing fell in my lap in May 1994. I was thinking that this property was exactly what “I” wanted. Unfortunately, I did not have full say at the time. My spouse needed a hunk of flat land outside the back door so he could keep close tabs of all his vehicles and we couldn’t carry two properties.
[quote=AN]What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.[/quote]
Again, we seem to be going around and around on this but income is also inherited (or the principal by which income is derived from) or left in trust for a future heir to use while one is still alive.
The continuation of “active” income is completely out of one’s control unless they have seniority in a union, their position is protected by public law or are under an iron-clad contract with a buyout provision. The rest of the “worker-bees” can be put out on the street with their COBRA papers in their armpit with little to no warning.
[quote=AN]How did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?[/quote]
Yes, they probably did. They needed $4,000 to $30,000 cash or the ability to make payments of $64 to $190 mo. (+ taxes & ins.) for 20 yrs. (on a new loan) depending on the location. In most cases when they took out loans, down-payments were not required. Many loans were assumed from the prev. owner with no money down.
[quote=AN]I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it.[/quote]
Do tell us. Did you make a profit when you sold this property?
May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM #552389Participant[quote=AN]If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either.[/quote] (emphasis added)
Having 50K in 1994 would not have been enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
AN, you seem a little defensive. FWIW, you can consult other Piggs on this, but the “bottom of the last cycle” was Fall 1997. The “top of the current bubble” was Fall 2005. I wasn’t even thinking about “cycles” at the time when this thing fell in my lap in May 1994. I was thinking that this property was exactly what “I” wanted. Unfortunately, I did not have full say at the time. My spouse needed a hunk of flat land outside the back door so he could keep close tabs of all his vehicles and we couldn’t carry two properties.
[quote=AN]What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.[/quote]
Again, we seem to be going around and around on this but income is also inherited (or the principal by which income is derived from) or left in trust for a future heir to use while one is still alive.
The continuation of “active” income is completely out of one’s control unless they have seniority in a union, their position is protected by public law or are under an iron-clad contract with a buyout provision. The rest of the “worker-bees” can be put out on the street with their COBRA papers in their armpit with little to no warning.
[quote=AN]How did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?[/quote]
Yes, they probably did. They needed $4,000 to $30,000 cash or the ability to make payments of $64 to $190 mo. (+ taxes & ins.) for 20 yrs. (on a new loan) depending on the location. In most cases when they took out loans, down-payments were not required. Many loans were assumed from the prev. owner with no money down.
[quote=AN]I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it.[/quote]
Do tell us. Did you make a profit when you sold this property?
May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM #552876Participant[quote=AN]If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either.[/quote] (emphasis added)
Having 50K in 1994 would not have been enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
AN, you seem a little defensive. FWIW, you can consult other Piggs on this, but the “bottom of the last cycle” was Fall 1997. The “top of the current bubble” was Fall 2005. I wasn’t even thinking about “cycles” at the time when this thing fell in my lap in May 1994. I was thinking that this property was exactly what “I” wanted. Unfortunately, I did not have full say at the time. My spouse needed a hunk of flat land outside the back door so he could keep close tabs of all his vehicles and we couldn’t carry two properties.
[quote=AN]What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.[/quote]
Again, we seem to be going around and around on this but income is also inherited (or the principal by which income is derived from) or left in trust for a future heir to use while one is still alive.
The continuation of “active” income is completely out of one’s control unless they have seniority in a union, their position is protected by public law or are under an iron-clad contract with a buyout provision. The rest of the “worker-bees” can be put out on the street with their COBRA papers in their armpit with little to no warning.
[quote=AN]How did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?[/quote]
Yes, they probably did. They needed $4,000 to $30,000 cash or the ability to make payments of $64 to $190 mo. (+ taxes & ins.) for 20 yrs. (on a new loan) depending on the location. In most cases when they took out loans, down-payments were not required. Many loans were assumed from the prev. owner with no money down.
[quote=AN]I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it.[/quote]
Do tell us. Did you make a profit when you sold this property?
May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM #552974Participant[quote=AN]If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either.[/quote] (emphasis added)
Having 50K in 1994 would not have been enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
AN, you seem a little defensive. FWIW, you can consult other Piggs on this, but the “bottom of the last cycle” was Fall 1997. The “top of the current bubble” was Fall 2005. I wasn’t even thinking about “cycles” at the time when this thing fell in my lap in May 1994. I was thinking that this property was exactly what “I” wanted. Unfortunately, I did not have full say at the time. My spouse needed a hunk of flat land outside the back door so he could keep close tabs of all his vehicles and we couldn’t carry two properties.
[quote=AN]What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.[/quote]
Again, we seem to be going around and around on this but income is also inherited (or the principal by which income is derived from) or left in trust for a future heir to use while one is still alive.
The continuation of “active” income is completely out of one’s control unless they have seniority in a union, their position is protected by public law or are under an iron-clad contract with a buyout provision. The rest of the “worker-bees” can be put out on the street with their COBRA papers in their armpit with little to no warning.
[quote=AN]How did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?[/quote]
Yes, they probably did. They needed $4,000 to $30,000 cash or the ability to make payments of $64 to $190 mo. (+ taxes & ins.) for 20 yrs. (on a new loan) depending on the location. In most cases when they took out loans, down-payments were not required. Many loans were assumed from the prev. owner with no money down.
[quote=AN]I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it.[/quote]
Do tell us. Did you make a profit when you sold this property?
May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM #553254Participant[quote=AN]If I was old enough and had $50k in 1998, I could have made a few millions by 2000. There are opportunities everywhere, not just in RE. The kind of opportunity you had in 1994 is not available to everyone. You just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But you failed to jump on that opportunity. BTW, you compared near bottom of the last cycle to the near top of this cycle. There’s nothing interesting about that. You don’t even need to have a very special property in a special area either.[/quote] (emphasis added)
Having 50K in 1994 would not have been enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
AN, you seem a little defensive. FWIW, you can consult other Piggs on this, but the “bottom of the last cycle” was Fall 1997. The “top of the current bubble” was Fall 2005. I wasn’t even thinking about “cycles” at the time when this thing fell in my lap in May 1994. I was thinking that this property was exactly what “I” wanted. Unfortunately, I did not have full say at the time. My spouse needed a hunk of flat land outside the back door so he could keep close tabs of all his vehicles and we couldn’t carry two properties.
[quote=AN]What do you mean active income is fleeting? You need to have/had active income to build enough asset to grow your passive income.[/quote]
Again, we seem to be going around and around on this but income is also inherited (or the principal by which income is derived from) or left in trust for a future heir to use while one is still alive.
The continuation of “active” income is completely out of one’s control unless they have seniority in a union, their position is protected by public law or are under an iron-clad contract with a buyout provision. The rest of the “worker-bees” can be put out on the street with their COBRA papers in their armpit with little to no warning.
[quote=AN]How did that house got bought in the first place? Be it by their parents or grand parents? Don’t they need income to buy that?[/quote]
Yes, they probably did. They needed $4,000 to $30,000 cash or the ability to make payments of $64 to $190 mo. (+ taxes & ins.) for 20 yrs. (on a new loan) depending on the location. In most cases when they took out loans, down-payments were not required. Many loans were assumed from the prev. owner with no money down.
[quote=AN]I bought a fixer myself and did a lot of DIY projects on it.[/quote]
Do tell us. Did you make a profit when you sold this property?
May 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM #552302ParticipantMe, defensive? Nah, it all fun and game for me. I just find it funny when people get snobby and look down on others based on their prejudices.
Did I say 1994 is the bottom and 2004 is the top? You seemed to glazed over the tract home in Solana beach I brought up.
Are you trying to say once you get fired, you active income is done and gone?
Why don’t you tell us more about you other missed opportunity. It’s much more interesting than my lower MC home.
May 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM #552409ParticipantMe, defensive? Nah, it all fun and game for me. I just find it funny when people get snobby and look down on others based on their prejudices.
Did I say 1994 is the bottom and 2004 is the top? You seemed to glazed over the tract home in Solana beach I brought up.
Are you trying to say once you get fired, you active income is done and gone?
Why don’t you tell us more about you other missed opportunity. It’s much more interesting than my lower MC home.
May 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM #552896ParticipantMe, defensive? Nah, it all fun and game for me. I just find it funny when people get snobby and look down on others based on their prejudices.
Did I say 1994 is the bottom and 2004 is the top? You seemed to glazed over the tract home in Solana beach I brought up.
Are you trying to say once you get fired, you active income is done and gone?
Why don’t you tell us more about you other missed opportunity. It’s much more interesting than my lower MC home.
May 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM #552994ParticipantMe, defensive? Nah, it all fun and game for me. I just find it funny when people get snobby and look down on others based on their prejudices.
Did I say 1994 is the bottom and 2004 is the top? You seemed to glazed over the tract home in Solana beach I brought up.
Are you trying to say once you get fired, you active income is done and gone?
Why don’t you tell us more about you other missed opportunity. It’s much more interesting than my lower MC home.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.