- This topic has 372 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
joec.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM #770807February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM #770875
carlsbadworker
ParticipantI like Temecula but I don’t understand why you make the decision so permanent. It’s just a house, if you like it, stay longer. If not, move. You probably need some rental property in your portfolio to “retire”. Life is complicate enough, don’t over-complicate it.
February 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM #770877paramount
Participantscaredy did you go to a tier 1/2/3 school?
February 12, 2014 at 10:52 PM #770878Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
Which makes me think about all the old discussions, paramount, I hope you kept that paloma house as a rental, you are going to make a mint one day. By my calculations, your doubling down will make you a rich man, wish I had done the same.[/quote]
To be honest TG, I’ve been thinking of selling and moving to SD to be closer to work, and NOT because I like SD better. I have young children who are playing sports, have lot’s of homework etc…and I’m looking at the value of reclaiming 8-10 hours a week of my life by moving closer to work.
I still have my other house, my hesitation being due to my tenants. I really don’t want to disrupt their lives by selling. If they vacate, I’m putting both up for sale and moving to SD if at all possible.
My plan which is penciled in is as follows:
1. Sell my Temecula properties
2. Payoff any debt (be debt free except mortgage)
3. Buy in SD with a large down payment in the 500k range, maybe a little more.I think it’s a win-win…
February 13, 2014 at 12:48 AM #770884
svelteParticipantIsn’t “semi-retire” another word for “work part-time”?
In that case, I was semi-retired through high school and college.
February 13, 2014 at 10:53 AM #770891FlyerInHi
Guestretire is the wrong word. it implies withdrawal from the real world.
It’s not about working parttime but doing what you want, when you want, and not worry about the next paycheck. That allows you to be more involved with the world around you.
February 13, 2014 at 11:07 AM #770892scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=paramount]scaredy did you go to a tier 1/2/3 school?[/quote]
Top 20. Tuition was 16 thousabd a yr back then 50 plus thousand a yr now.
Too risky. Only worth the credential if your family has the money or you’re trying to make it in big firm law.
Debt load is crushing nowadays although the gov. Has Ibr income based repayment schemes to keep the Ponzi plan afloat.
Borrowing or paying 250k for any law degree today is a risky maneuver. I would oppose my kids doing that…
February 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM #770901livinincali
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
Borrowing or paying 250k for any law degree today is a risky maneuver. I would oppose my kids doing that…[/quote]Borrowing for any major is pretty risky these days. At a macro level the ROI on borrowing the full college cost is negative now. If you get scholarships, grants, and/or beat the averages in terms of graduation rats and job prospects it can still be positive though.
February 13, 2014 at 3:02 PM #770903ParticipantOn the other hand … people said I was dumb back in 1992 doing the law thing.
I admit I just dunno.
February 15, 2014 at 10:42 PM #771011Participantscaredy: from a lawyer’s POV, what do you think about this comment Justice Scalia made a few weeks ago:
Justice Scalia: You Are ‘Kidding Yourself’ If You Think World War II-Style Internment Camps Will Never Happen Again.
And that was before Patriot Act and NDAA.
You have to know the Constitution has been all but completely destroyed.
How relevant can your legal education be with that in mind?
February 15, 2014 at 11:13 PM #771013CA renter
Participant[quote=paramount]scaredy: from a lawyer’s POV, what do you think about this comment Justice Scalia made a few weeks ago:
Justice Scalia: You Are ‘Kidding Yourself’ If You Think World War II-Style Internment Camps Will Never Happen Again.
And that was before Patriot Act and NDAA.
You have to know the Constitution has been all but completely destroyed.
How relevant can your legal education be with that in mind?[/quote]
You need to provide links, paramount. Otherwise, some people won’t believe you. They will continue to insist that “it can’t happen here,” and then call you a conspiracy theorist. 😉
I do find it interesting that this is being discussed far more on “alternative” news sites. Same as always, when something important is happening, like with the TPP, the sheeple are kept in the dark.
………
February 5, 2014
“Justice Antonin Scalia says World War II-style internment camps could happen again.”
A headline that might seem shocking but doesn’t surprise me at all. What Scalia said is an entirely ordinary observation within the field of constitutional law (from my perspective, anyway, as someone who’s taught conlaw for 30 years):Scalia was responding to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the convictions of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu for violating an order to report to an internment camp.
“Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told students and faculty during a lunchtime question-and-answer session.
Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
“That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality,” he said.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/02/justice-antonin-scalia-says-world-war.html
February 16, 2014 at 7:23 AM #771018ParticipantSome constitutional provisions are still working better than ever. For instance you have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. And you have the right to counsel. And not only that counsel must be effective.
Luckily the framers did not say you have a right to a reasonable determination of whether or not you committed a crime.
SScale a loves to be in the news and say provocative things. He may be right. But he is an attention seeker.
February 19, 2014 at 4:41 PM #771100kev374
ParticipantI plan to retire at 55 which is about 15 years away for me. The issue is that if I get married and subsequently divorce down the road it could be catastrophic to my plans.
I need to find a woman who at least makes a decent income and the risk of divorce is low but I have yet to find such a woman. Most people these days, even those in their mid 30s, are saddled with ridiculous levels of debt and have negative net worths. To add to the mix they don’t even have a good income!
The extremely poor choices people make in life these days is truly flabbergasting! What amazes me even more is that these people strut around thinking that they are ALL THAT AND A BUNCH MORE!!! LMAO! Geezus christ!
February 19, 2014 at 5:23 PM #771101Participantmarry a doctor?
February 19, 2014 at 9:52 PM #771102flyer
ParticipantInteresting that you’re having such a problem finding someone “suitable,” kev. Most we know in your age group are happily married to professional women.
Many of them are doctors, lawyers, film execs, pilots, etc., and these couples will also be in a position to retire early if they wish to. Many met in college, and built their lives together over the years.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.