[an]

[quote=joec]One thing I don’t understand is if your own kids are vaccinated, how does other people not getting the vaccination affect your kid or you?

Being vaccinated, aren’t you protected already and if people get the measles, it shouldn’t affect you right?[/quote]IIRC, the MMR effective rate is something like 98-99%. However, if you’re surrounded by people who are not vaccinated and have measles, then the effective rate drops to something like 88%. Still effective, but it definitely reduces the effective rate. Which is why it’s important that everyone is vaccinated, so that your kids are not exposed to other kids who are not vaccinated and contracted measles.

Unfortunately, a big portion of the anti-vaccination movement are affluent people, who have the means to travel the world. Which then expose their kids to these kinds of diseases from other countries and bring it back here to the US.

[an]

[quote=zk]Don’t vaccinate your kids, ok. But keep them away from my kid. Move to the middle of Montana with a bunch of other ignorant fools who didn’t vaccinate their kids and wait for the measles to come to you. Assholes.[/quote]Or Beverly Hills. Isn’t Jenny McCarthy from there?

http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/SiteImages/ChiIdImmunizations-map-2014.jpg

http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20150129/vaccination-choice-measles?page=2
“An investigation by the The Hollywood Reporter found that in some affluent neighborhoods around Los Angeles, more than 60% of preschoolers are unvaccinated, giving the area a rate of vaccination comparable to South Sudan. California logged more than 60 measles cases last year, and has 79 just in the first month of this year, with most connected to Disneyland.”

[an]

I actually don’t see anything wrong with planning for extreme “what ifs”. As long as you also attribute the probability of it coming true in your planning as well You should also plan for “what ifs” at both end of the spectrum too. Not only should to plan for the Fed completely failing and you’ll get major deflation, but you should also plan for the Fed completely failing to control inflation and we’ll see a repeat of the 70s/80s. Obviously, either of those scenario are very unlikely to happen, but it’s not impossible. If you plan for it, then you won’t be blind sided and follow the heard off the cliff.

[an]

[quote=svelte]Rent here in San Marcos is $1700/mo for a two bedroom 1000 sf apartment, plus or minus $100. And supply is pretty limited.

I know, I’ve been assisting a friend of the family.

They ended up scraping together a 20% down payment and buying a 2 bedroom condo with a 2 car garage. Their payment is less that rent would have been.

There are so many submarkets in San Diego it is very hard to make a general statement about the entire county that means anything at all.[/quote]I’m pretty sure you can make a general statement if you preface it with except for undesirable areas. Then you can point to areas like Carmel Valley and say I was right, and areas like San Marcos and Mira Mesa as either undesirable or borderline undesirable.

[an]

rent is as close as you can get to pure supply/demand. So, you might think it’s high or low, but in reality, it’s just market prices.

[an]

[quote=moneymaker][quote=AN]30 year rate has dropped like the 30 years treasury yield. It’s still still at ~3.625%. Anything think we’ll see a closing of the gap and see 30 years mortgage rate hitting 3%?[/quote]
I’m thinking it could be lower for people with perfect credit scores of course points might also be necessary.[/quote]That rate is with 0 point. Of course if you buy down rate, you can get it lower. But it’s quite expensive and would take way too long to break even. I would hope that it would get down to ~3%, since at the bottom last time, you were able to get ~3.25% with 0 point.

[an]

30 year rate has dropped like the 30 years treasury yield. It’s still still at ~3.625%. Anything think we’ll see a closing of the gap and see 30 years mortgage rate hitting 3%?

[an]

[quote=livinincali][quote=AN]
Transaction cost only apply if you sell. You’re, right, there is maintenance cost. If you add that, you should also add appreciation as well.[/quote]

But you can’t realize net equity until you sell right. Even if you take out a HELOC you also create a liability until you sell.

The bottom line is rent vs buy calculations can get tricky. I think you either need to keep it really simple like Mortgage monthly payment vs rent or it needs to be really complicated. In our low rate environment MID is mostly canceled out by Property Tax. Appreciation is probably mostly canceled out by maintenance. Equity build is mostly canceled out transaction costs. It’s only once you get past 5-10 years before you really start to see economic positives in ownership vs renting.

The biggest unknown right now is will rates move higher, how much will they move higher, and what potential effect does that have on the price of homes. In the worst case scenario I could see home prices significantly lower than they are now.[/quote]You can keep it simple for try to add more variables into the equation. They result is still the same. The house I gave as an example, P+I is ~$1600/month. Rent for that house is ~$2100/month. $1600/month gets you a 2/2 condo in Mira Mesa. So, if you buy this house, your mortgage would be equivalent to renting a 2/2 condo.

Actually, for this example house, MID would only be about 1/2 of property tax. Which is why I add it in there. Just so there’s a clearer picture of what the exact yearly cost would be vs rent. I would say appreciation far out pace maintenance. Even at a modest 3% appreciation, you’re looking at ~$13k/year. There’s no way you would spend that much on maintenance. I haven’t spent close to that over the last decade.

Also, assuming price doesn’t change, the equity you put into the house through principle would surpasses transaction cost at ~44 months. So, if you stay in the house 5+ years, you’ll put more principle into the house than the 6% transaction cost. Keep in mind you have option to pay less than 6% transaction cost.

So, it comes down to how long you intend to stay in the house. If you plan to stay only 3 years, obviously, you should be renting, not buying. Not only because of the finances, but it would save you a lot of headache with buying and selling since your time frame is too short.

[an]

[quote=joec]Having a fixed known housing cost is great too…[/quote]Not only that it’s a good feeling to know your housing cost is fixed, on the flip side of that is, rent will go up. That’s a given. So, the longer you stay in the same house, the more likely the ratio of rent vs own decrease.

[an]

[quote=bewildering][quote=deadzone]If you have to put 20% down then it is not an apples to apples comparison (rent vs. mortgage) in terms of affordability. I would say Mira Mesa is borderline undesirable.[/quote]

Mira Mesa is undesirable to single folks, but very desirable to families. Schools are great and easy to get around. Newer as well, so not as many ghetto houses as North Park, South Park, Clairemont etc.

As mentioned above, use the New York times rent vs. buy calculator. And remember when markets work everyone can spot a bargain. I doubt their are great deals to be had in this market.[/quote]Unless deadzone is rich and anything less than Carmel Valley/Del Mar/etc is undesirable.

[an]

[quote=livinincali][quote=AN]I don’t see why it’s not apple to apple comparison? PITI – tax deduction would be less than rent. You’re also paying ~$600/month toward principle, while rent, it’s all gone. I guess if you want to have a pure rent vs mortgage, then compare ITI – tax deduction vs rent. This particular house, ITI with 20% down is ~$1500/month. ITI with 10% down is ~$1600/month. That’s $500-600< than comparable rent. Depending on your tax bracket, you can add ~$200 to that number as well on the buying side for tax deduction. [/quote] Probably need to include transaction costs and maintenance if you're going to give yourself the benefit of realizing the principal part of the payment.[/quote] Transaction cost only apply if you sell. You're, right, there is maintenance cost. If you add that, you should also add appreciation as well.

[an]

[quote=deadzone]If you have to put 20% down then it is not an apples to apples comparison (rent vs. mortgage) in terms of affordability. I would say Mira Mesa is borderline undesirable.[/quote]I don’t see why it’s not apple to apple comparison? PITI – tax deduction would be less than rent. You’re also paying ~$600/month toward principle, while rent, it’s all gone. I guess if you want to have a pure rent vs mortgage, then compare ITI – tax deduction vs rent. This particular house, ITI with 20% down is ~$1500/month. ITI with 10% down is ~$1600/month. That’s $500-600< than comparable rent. Depending on your tax bracket, you can add ~$200 to that number as well on the buying side for tax deduction. As for Mira Mesa being borderline undesirable, then I guess >50% of San Diego is undesirable. If you’re the type of think Mira Mesa is undesirable and can’t come up with a big down payment, something is wrong with your perception and your finances.

[an]

[quote=deadzone]What areas in San Diego is mortgage with minimal down payment less than rent? Probably only undesirable areas.[/quote]Mira Mesa. This house: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-140064625-10221_Trails_End_Cir_San_Diego_CA_92126 @ $450k with $90k down, P+I = $1600. PITI would be around $2100. Rent for that house is currently going for ~$2100. So, yeah, it’s still out there.

Unless you mean minimal down as in <20% down. In that case, I would suggest not to buy if you can't afford to save enough to have 20% down. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper than rent. It's better to save enough for 20% down and still have some set aside for a rainy day before considering making such a big purchase.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]
No, not something that they know and I don’t. It’s something I know and you don’t. Context is everything. We haven’t been talking about the budget as a whole, we’ve been talking about a single proposal. And this particular proposal is one that would replace one tax expenditure with another. Not new spending.

It’s now a dead deal. It shouldn’t be. But Obama is a realist. He knows how politics work. And this small proposal wasn’t worth the fight. And he knows at this point he’s just as likely to get what he wants with new spending. Though neither are too likely. Republicans in congress never met a tax cut they didn’t like. Unless it benefits low and middle income taxpayers. And this one does.[/quote]LoL, just saying you know something doesn’t make it true. But whatever. It’s dead now. Just like SCA-5.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN] But its good to see where the president want to get more revenue for his spending.[/quote]

Your framing is revealing. At least so far, this isn’t a proposal to get more revenue or to increase spending. It’s a proposal to redirect tax expenditures.[/quote]hmmm…
Washington Post: “President Obama unveiled an ambitious $3.9 trillion budget blueprint Tuesday that seeks billions of dollars in fresh spending to boost economic growth but also pledges to tame the national debt by raising taxes on the wealthy, slashing payments to health providers and overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/04/obama-budget-seeks-new-spending-new-taxes-to-boost-economy-tame-debt
Yahoo: “Obama’s 2015 Budget Proposal: More Spending, Less Pretending” http://news.yahoo.com/obama-39-2015-budget-proposal-more-spending-less-141900462.html

I guess you know something they don’t. Now, that’s revealing.

[Author]

Posts