Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Rental Property: Time to Sell? June 2014
- This topic has 62 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 29, 2014 at 4:43 PM #775828June 29, 2014 at 9:06 PM #775833
scaredyclassic
ParticipantIt’s not really a subsidy or is it…. but it will definitely feel like a penalty if it’s withdrawn. If it’s withdrawn the price of the house will be lower. So by leaving it in place the price is higher than it would’ve been without it. Which sounds suspiciously like…A subsidy
June 30, 2014 at 12:35 AM #775840CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
Not only are your property taxes subsidized (assuming prices have risen more than 2% per year since you’ve bought it), but the interest rate on your mortgage is also subsidized if it’s a govt-backed mortgage.
[/quote]the subsidy argument is hogwash. If there was a subsidy, it would already have been reflected in the net present value of the house at time of purchase.
with my property taxes, I feel like I’m subsidizing the breeders and their kids. Not that I mind… but the subsidy point can be taken to a circular argument.
The law is what it is… there is no subsidy unless one is specifically designed to a provide a subsidy to a group. government backed mortgages is a subsidy to the housing industry or finance industry, yes. But it’s not a subsidy to homebuyers.[/quote]
Once again…
[quote=CA renter]
As for the subsidy:“Definition of ‘Subsidy’
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.”
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
…..
tax subsidy
noun [C or U] TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
› a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:[Which Prop 13 largely fails to do, BTW, since most LLs charge market rent, irrespective of the subsidies they receive.]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy
—–Prop 13 is absolutely the very essence of a tax subsidy to those who least need it (people who own more property than they can use for themselves). It is unconscionable that we are providing these subsidies when the state and local governments are so strapped.[/quote]
http://piggington.com/comment/reply/18092/243011?quote=1#comment-form
June 30, 2014 at 6:57 AM #775843Participantit does seem like there is a difference between a new subsidy, and one that’s been in place a long time.
a subsidy that’s been in place a long time isn’t going to affect behavior, except int he sense that people fear its removal, since as noted above it has already been reflected in market price for the item.
a new subsidy is a different story.
maybe there needs to be different terms for each type of subsidy.
June 30, 2014 at 7:02 AM #775844Participantgven current market conditions, i did ask my wife if we could see and become housesitting hobosand ramble around for the rest of our lives, just to see what her position as on becoming a hobo… she said no.
June 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM #775848Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]it does seem like there is a difference between a new subsidy, and one that’s been in place a long time.
a subsidy that’s been in place a long time isn’t going to affect behavior, except int he sense that people fear its removal, since as noted above it has already been reflected in market price for the item.
a new subsidy is a different story.
maybe there needs to be different terms for each type of subsidy.[/quote]
But it’s still a subsidy. 🙂
June 30, 2014 at 1:11 PM #775850FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=CA renter]
But it’s still a subsidy. :)[/quote]
A very broad definition of subsidy is really not precise and not helpful. it just allows the person making the argument to vilify the opposing party as “underserving leeches.”
Everybody is getting a subsidy somehow. healthy people are subsidizing sick people. Rich people who pay more taxes are subsidizing the poor, etc..
June 30, 2014 at 1:15 PM #775851Guestthe argument that total property tax receipts are too low because of prop 13 is totally dishonest.
Since prop 13, real estate prices have skyrocketed. Notwithstanding prop 13, property tax receipts have outpaced population growth plus inflation. In that regard, Prop 13 totally failed to cap government’s take.
June 30, 2014 at 7:55 PM #775859Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]the argument that total property tax receipts are too low because of prop 13 is totally dishonest.
Since prop 13, real estate prices have skyrocketed. Notwithstanding prop 13, property tax receipts have outpaced population growth plus inflation. In that regard, Prop 13 totally failed to cap government’s take.[/quote]
Yes, we are all being subsidized, and we are all subsidizing (those of us who pay taxes, or higher prices for goods/services, etc.).
I’m not necessarily arguing that tax receipts are too low, though I’m not arguing against that, either. We’ve also added billions upon billions (trillions?) of dollars in debt because taxpayers keep voting for more expensive infrastructure, services, and amenities.
And you’re failing to account for the *type* of population growth since the passing of Prop 13. We’ve been adding more and more poor immigrants who tend to consume more of our taxpayer-funded goods and services. But I’m not going to blame them so much as I blame their employers who are paying less than a living wage because of our subsidies. All users (illegal immigrants, and I’d be willing to add citizens to the group so that places like Walmart are held accountable, too) of public goods and services should have to possess an “entitlement” card, paid for by their employer, that covers all of the public costs associated with them and their dependents.
June 30, 2014 at 9:43 PM #775861paramount
ParticipantWe’re really off in the twilight zone now; I for one am sick/tired of subsidizing ridiculous govt worker (total) compensation.
Govt workers are mandated to contribute 3% to their pensions, but are given a 4% out-of-cycle raise for their troubles.
Cities in California aren’t strapped because they don’t take in enough prop 13 or other tax money (there are ways around prop 13 – bonds, fees, etc…) – they are strapped because a librarian in San Diego is getting paid $225,000 for life (and were not even talking about med benefits, etc…).
California is closing in on $700 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for govt workers – don’t be surprised if you catch one of Jerry’s kids digging in your sofa for loose change.
They want every last penny for their wealth redistribution agenda.
June 30, 2014 at 10:10 PM #775862Participant[quote=paramount]We’re really off in the twilight zone now; I for one am sick/tired of subsidizing ridiculous govt worker (total) compensation.
Govt workers are mandated to contribute 3% to their pensions, but are given a 4% out-of-cycle raise for their troubles.
Cities in California aren’t strapped because they don’t take in enough prop 13 or other tax money (there are ways around prop 13 – bonds, fees, etc…) – they are strapped because a librarian in San Diego is getting paid $225,000 for life (and were not even talking about med benefits, etc…).
California is closing in on $700 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for govt workers – don’t be surprised if you catch one of Jerry’s kids digging in your sofa for loose change.
They want every last penny for their wealth redistribution agenda.[/quote]
Yeah, you just keep on spouting that same old propaganda, paramount. No need to actually understand the issues or rely on facts or data. Rhetoric and propaganda are all that’s need to convince Joe Sixpack that the unions are the ones who’ve destroyed his financial security. Never mind the facts.
BTW, no “librarian” is making $225K for life.
And how about answering for the facts dug up about your “California Teachers taking on the Teachers’ Union” garbage?
Why is it that whenever the facts come out, you disappear?
http://piggington.com/ot_california_teachers_taking_on_the_california_teachers_union
June 30, 2014 at 10:29 PM #775863Participant[quote=CA renter]
BTW, no “librarian” is making $225K for life.[/quote]
You’re right, it’s not $225k, it’s 227k and 234k:
From: San Diego Tax Fighters
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Feb/15/top-city-pensioner-paid-307000/
Our retired head San Diego city librarian made $139,000 salary as an employee. She now receives $227,000 in pensions, PLUS has another major pension we can’t quantify. Contrast that with a Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps — a FOUR STAR general position. That general’s pension for 30 years often arduous and dangerous service is about $149,000 a year.
Top pensions 2011
Assistant city attorney $307,758Investment officer $255,509
Fire battalion chief $244,435
Assistant police chief $242,947
City librarian $234,091<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< "Public employee pensions and other retiree benefits (e.g free healthcare) suck the life out of the taxpayer who will never see such outrageous benefits. Here's some simple math: $65,000 per year + $12,000 per year for free healthcare for 25 years of retirement = $2,000,000 payout! (A lottery hit) Unsustainable for the poor taxpayer who's services are being cut to fund this black hole. This ain't "middle class" stuff folks and I'm already paying my "fair share" of it."
June 30, 2014 at 10:43 PM #775864Participant[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]
BTW, no “librarian” is making $225K for life.[/quote]
You’re right, it’s not $225k, it’s 227k and 234k:
From: San Diego Tax Fighters
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Feb/15/top-city-pensioner-paid-307000/
Our retired head San Diego city librarian made $139,000 salary as an employee. She now receives $227,000 in pensions, PLUS has another major pension we can’t quantify. Contrast that with a Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps — a FOUR STAR general position. That general’s pension for 30 years often arduous and dangerous service is about $149,000 a year.
Top pensions 2011
Assistant city attorney $307,758Investment officer $255,509
Fire battalion chief $244,435
Assistant police chief $242,947
City librarian $234,091<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< "Public employee pensions and other retiree benefits (e.g free healthcare) suck the life out of the taxpayer who will never see such outrageous benefits. Here's some simple math: $65,000 per year + $12,000 per year for free healthcare for 25 years of retirement = $2,000,000 payout! (A lottery hit) Unsustainable for the poor taxpayer who's services are being cut to fund this black hole. This ain't "middle class" stuff folks and I'm already paying my "fair share" of it."[/quote] Link? Let's look into this some more, shall we? Since pension benefits are paid as a percentage of the employee's salary, this number does not make any sense. Clearly, your sources have been grossly misleading, to say the least. Still waiting for your response on that "teachers fighting the union" nonsense. ------------- And how about stuff like this: http://www.sdcta.org/Uploads/Documents/Proposition%20Z.SD%20Unified%20Bond%20Measure%20PUBLIC.pdf
...and this:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/08/06/where-borrowing-105-million-will-cost-1-billion-poway-schools/
...and this:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/08/06/where-borrowing-105-million-will-cost-1-billion-poway-schools/
(I could go on, and on, and on...)
No, to you, it's all the unions' fault. That is nothing less than pure propaganda.
--------------
And let's get one thing perfectly clear, once again. The pension benefits come from the pension funds, not "the taxpayers' pockets." These pension benefits are paid out of separate pension funds that are financed by: investment returns (the greatest portion), employer contributions (calculated as a percentage of *current* employees' wages/salaries), and employee contributions (usually 9% of their wages/salaries for the higher-paid public employees, which is subject to increases going forward). Public employers have also been reducing pension benefits, and public employees will be increasing their contributions going forward, so your claim that "taxpayers" are the only ones taking the hit is pure bullshit. DB pensions are a form of deferred compensation; there is no "lottery hit" here.
June 30, 2014 at 10:49 PM #775865ParticipantAnd one more thing, paramount, I’m willing to bet that we pay FAR more in taxes toward schools and other taxpayer-funded infrastructure and services that we do not use than you (or any of the other whiners here) are paying toward pensions for those wretched public employees. That’s the nature of a civilized democracy: we all have to pay for things we don’t like or use, and most of us also get something for a much lower price than what we’d have to pay if it were privatized.
I hate wars that benefit a handful of very well-connected people and corporations at the expense of taxpayers and people who live in weaker countries…but I still have to pay for them (and YOU!).
June 30, 2014 at 10:56 PM #775866ParticipantAccidentally posted the wrong link, above (2 for Prop Z). Here’s the other link for the most recent school bond measures in California:
http://ballotpedia.org/School_bond_elections_in_California
And the SD library:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Sep/21/central-library-timeline/
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.