Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CONCHO] . . . But SFRs and multi-family units have other issues like termites, old construction, etc… so they’re not perfect either.
I think if one chooses very carefully though you might be able to get a decent bit of rental income in your retirement and a little work 30 years from now doing management of a couple of your own properties.[/quote]
Concho, you can kill termites with tent fumigation that YOU YOURSELF contract on YOUR OWN SFR (personal residence OR rental). Then you will have at least a two-year guarantee that they will not come back. You will NOT be in charge of a condo assn’s pest control contract nor will the assn. EVER likely tent fumigate, which is the ONLY KNOWN REMEDY to kill all living termites (and any other living thing left in there while the gas is dispersed).
Oftentimes, pier and post (heavy cedar/redwood piers) with a 2.5 high concrete stemwall (and perhaps another bracing wall down the middle) with a crawlspace makes it not only easier to replace plumbing but it is easier to inspect for termites. These types of homes (in CA) are a minimum of 60 years old and they are MUCH BETTER-BUILT that newer construction. You can always replace old sash or leaky windows and rehab this property little by little between tenants or even lay a new floor in a room while your loyal tenant is residing there!
With a condo, you will be paying 2-3 times the current HOA dues in 20-30 years (if they’re still “solvent”) plus whatever special assessments the Board of Directors votes in. As a retiree, you will have NOTHING TO DO but collect rent and listen to tenants whine about flaws within the unit that they want fixed. Any complaints your tenants have OUTSIDE THE WALLS of your unit will have to be directed to the HOA if they are legitimate. And let me tell you that HOA Boards will typically NOT SIDE with tenant-complaints.
Concho, had you considered purchasing a small, perhaps <1000 sf SFR for a rental? There are currently a few of these avail in 91910 for $225K to $275K. Perhaps you could snag one for less and add the amount of HOA dues you would have paid into your retirement fund every month!
Participant[quote=CONCHO] . . . But SFRs and multi-family units have other issues like termites, old construction, etc… so they’re not perfect either.
I think if one chooses very carefully though you might be able to get a decent bit of rental income in your retirement and a little work 30 years from now doing management of a couple of your own properties.[/quote]
Concho, you can kill termites with tent fumigation that YOU YOURSELF contract on YOUR OWN SFR (personal residence OR rental). Then you will have at least a two-year guarantee that they will not come back. You will NOT be in charge of a condo assn’s pest control contract nor will the assn. EVER likely tent fumigate, which is the ONLY KNOWN REMEDY to kill all living termites (and any other living thing left in there while the gas is dispersed).
Oftentimes, pier and post (heavy cedar/redwood piers) with a 2.5 high concrete stemwall (and perhaps another bracing wall down the middle) with a crawlspace makes it not only easier to replace plumbing but it is easier to inspect for termites. These types of homes (in CA) are a minimum of 60 years old and they are MUCH BETTER-BUILT that newer construction. You can always replace old sash or leaky windows and rehab this property little by little between tenants or even lay a new floor in a room while your loyal tenant is residing there!
With a condo, you will be paying 2-3 times the current HOA dues in 20-30 years (if they’re still “solvent”) plus whatever special assessments the Board of Directors votes in. As a retiree, you will have NOTHING TO DO but collect rent and listen to tenants whine about flaws within the unit that they want fixed. Any complaints your tenants have OUTSIDE THE WALLS of your unit will have to be directed to the HOA if they are legitimate. And let me tell you that HOA Boards will typically NOT SIDE with tenant-complaints.
Concho, had you considered purchasing a small, perhaps <1000 sf SFR for a rental? There are currently a few of these avail in 91910 for $225K to $275K. Perhaps you could snag one for less and add the amount of HOA dues you would have paid into your retirement fund every month!
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I guess you two missed the part of my post in which I said that I would continue saving until I could afford to purchase one safely.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that, Concho. I’m just very bearish on condos in general. I feel they are a bad investment because indiv. owners of unit(s) lack control over so many desireability, rentability and condition factors. In my mind, predicting the future of most condo associations is nothing but a “crapshoot.”
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I guess you two missed the part of my post in which I said that I would continue saving until I could afford to purchase one safely.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that, Concho. I’m just very bearish on condos in general. I feel they are a bad investment because indiv. owners of unit(s) lack control over so many desireability, rentability and condition factors. In my mind, predicting the future of most condo associations is nothing but a “crapshoot.”
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I guess you two missed the part of my post in which I said that I would continue saving until I could afford to purchase one safely.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that, Concho. I’m just very bearish on condos in general. I feel they are a bad investment because indiv. owners of unit(s) lack control over so many desireability, rentability and condition factors. In my mind, predicting the future of most condo associations is nothing but a “crapshoot.”
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I guess you two missed the part of my post in which I said that I would continue saving until I could afford to purchase one safely.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that, Concho. I’m just very bearish on condos in general. I feel they are a bad investment because indiv. owners of unit(s) lack control over so many desireability, rentability and condition factors. In my mind, predicting the future of most condo associations is nothing but a “crapshoot.”
Participant[quote=CONCHO]I guess you two missed the part of my post in which I said that I would continue saving until I could afford to purchase one safely.[/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that, Concho. I’m just very bearish on condos in general. I feel they are a bad investment because indiv. owners of unit(s) lack control over so many desireability, rentability and condition factors. In my mind, predicting the future of most condo associations is nothing but a “crapshoot.”
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]As far as I know XBoxBoy, mortgage interest is only deductible up to $25K per year. Folks who are paying more interest than that can only deduct $25K of it.
Any accountant geek-Piggs out there reading this please correct me if this law has changed.[/quote]
Nope. Purchase money debt is deductible, up to a $1 million in debt, without regards to the dollar amount of the interest. Million dollar loan at 18% fixed, interest only, you get a deduction of $180,000. There are some limitations on non-purchase money debt, but they’re all related to the debt, not the dollar amount of interest.
The only $25,000 limitation that comes to mind is for passive losses for investments with active participation, most commonly related to rental property losses.[/quote]
SK in CV, I see this is where to “plug the hole” then. There comes a point where the interest deducted is exorbitant for daily living needs, such as those property owners who are deducting $100K+ annually (using interest from their principal-residence loans) off their incomes to arrive at their “taxable” incomes. Instead of having a “loan amount” cap, the IRS should use an “interest cap” of say $50,000 (on a luxury home). If the taxpayer’s property is “more luxurious” than that, they can AFFORD to eat the excess interest.
This would cut down on the issuance of usurious loans, too. They would no longer be attractive because they would no longer have preferential tax treatment for high-income borrowers.
Participant[quote=HLS]Concho..
Your post made me LOL. Anyone who wants to buy a condo without substantial income and reserves to hold “forever” *IS* a “wannabe Don Trump” in my book . . . [/quote]Agree with everything you’re saying here, HLS.
Participant[quote=HLS]Concho..
Your post made me LOL. Anyone who wants to buy a condo without substantial income and reserves to hold “forever” *IS* a “wannabe Don Trump” in my book . . . [/quote]Agree with everything you’re saying here, HLS.
-
AuthorPosts
