Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CoronitaParticipant[quote=The-Shoveler]Month to Month is better for all involved I think.
I would imagine if one side or the other is unhappy it is best just to part ways as fast as possible.[/quote]
If either side of the “arrangement” isn’t really happy, then well, it really doesn’t matter how long the lease is..It’s a miserable experience for most likely the landlord and even partly the tenant.
What I don’t want are the pain in the ass tenants…They are the ones that will complain about every little thing…I mean there are tenants with varying degree of pain in the ass, and some of it is tolerable, but some of it is just over the top…
CoronitaParticipantDifferent strokes for different folks Brian…
[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s not silly to care about looks over function. Apple proved that.
I betcha people who say that a plain white fridge is fine would not drive a car with a dent.
[/quote]Well funny, because I do have a plain white fridge in my primary house, and at the same time I do have a problem with the newer cars (the two that <2 years old with a dent, I don't care about the other two that are older than 5 )...
But that said, I sure don't mind if I RENT a car and it has a dent in it...In fact, if I had to rent a car with a dent that was $20/day cheaper or a car that doesn't have a dent but is functionally fine/safe, sign me up for the dented car...It's not my car, and I don't care about being vain in something that isn't mine.
[quote]
I think is kind cheesy to have ugly appliances like a mismatched pair washer dryer. And I don't want to be such a landlord and $500 expense doesn't bother me.
[/quote]And that's your decision as a landlord and I'm sure you're tenants appreciate you paying extra, perhaps they are more picky of appearances versus the cost of their rent... That's fine....
I'm sure my tenants, who are much more cost concern care more about having the lowest possible rent that I'm willing to give them while maintaining a safe, clean, healthy environment to live in, and don't want to spend on stuff that doesn't belong to them... And in return, I expect a fussy-less tenant that pay rent on time, that's it....
Personally, I would rather take my sort of tenant versus your sort of tenant, because to me, your sort of tenant runs the risk of being the pain in the ass tenant that will argue over every little thing..But that's just my opinion...
[quote]
In super strong markets like the Bay Area or NYC, you can rent out anything in the right location.San Diego is pretty strong. But as a small landlord, for example in Mira Mesa, you're competing against the brand new "luxury apartment homes" complexes. If your place looks good you can charge a little more.[/quote]
Funny you should mention that...
In MM, my rent is around $1200-50.. And I'm allowing them to do month to month. And I haven't jacked up their rent in over 1.5 years... Those brand new luxury apartment homes are around $1300-1450 with a minimum of a 1 year lease, about 150-200 more if you do a 6month lease, and even more ridiculous if you want to do month to month...Even a not-so luxury, standard run of the mill apartment complex like Summerset in MM is around $1300/month for a 6 month lease give or take $50 for a 1 year lease.Again, I'm sure there's some tenants that's willing to pay more and willing to be more finicky... Me personally, I'd rather take less rent and have less picky.
CoronitaParticipantActually for a SFH, I’m not even sure if a fridge/washer/dryer is necessary in some submarkets…
For many comparable SFH in the Bay Area, it’s BYOA.. Bring your own appliances..The only thing that comes with some of the the house is a dishwasher,range, oven…Seems to be more of the norm up there….
CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=flu]
For rental property. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.[/quote]
Because happy tenants who feel like they are getting a good deal on a nice place to live will be more likely to stay as long-term tenants, and this will keep your costs down over the long run. Also, they will tend to care more for the house if you care for it. It’s well known that if tenants feel as though their LL is a slumlord, they will be much more likely to abuse the place, in addition to engaging in other undesirable behaviors like not paying rent, stiffing you for the deposit as they use it for “last month’s rent,” etc.
What goes around, comes around.[/quote]
CAR you’re just losing it these days…Lol….
I have yet to meet a single tenant that even gives a rats ass whether they get a stainless steel appliance versus something that is plain white and functioning… (Granted broken appliances is a completely different thing)
Are you even serious on this one?
Get off your “moral” high horse will you? The stench is sickening sometimes…
And provided it’s clean, it’s safe, and it’s functional.. If someone doesn’t like it, they can always find other places to live that’s a better value for there money…
I’d be happy to put in new appliances for my tenant in the Bay Area, if they don’t mind me jacking up their rent from current below market prices of $3000/month… to current market price of $3300/month, which is what current market price is….
I’m sure however, my tenant would rather keep the extra $300/month in their wallet versus getting new appliances just because they “look nicer” for things that they don’t even own and that isn’t even theirs.
…And if they really had heartburn on it , they can always ask… Funny how over the past 3 years, they never have asked…I guess they’d rather keep more money in their own pockets, rather than pay for things that belong to me… Imagine that!
CoronitaParticipant.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=FlyerInHi]Sears outlet is fine if you buy open box or display items.
But if you order brand new and you know what you want, Sears, Lowes, Home Depot, etc… just pass the order to the manufacturer who ship direct to you (usually using the same contract delivery company). So it comes down to the pricing currently in effect.
(BTW, for warranty service, all the manufacturers seem to use the few same contract repair companies)
For rental properties, I would wait until Thanksgiving Black Friday, every year, and order upgraded stainless appliances for cheap. There’s a replacement cycle on appliances and it’s a good way to “delight” your tenants. It’s a good way to show your tenants that you care. I subscribe to the Costco motto of “delighting your customers.”
Appliances are more expensive when you have to replace immediately. But if you wait to Thanksgiving you could get a promo dishwasher that would normally cost $1000 for $400. Small price to pay to surprise your tenants and make them happy. Plus you avoid costly service calls that are inevitable when the appliances get old.
Super high end appliances are a different story.[/quote]
For rental property. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.
CoronitaParticipantI posted this on the SCA-5 thread yesterday….
I’m sure celebrating.
But come on were you really surprised about this. You have Yee, advocating gun control/gun ban, while trafficing illegal guns with his gangster buddy…
The same Senator Yee that is asian, that voted for SCA-5 which is discrimination against asians.
Don’t you love the hypocrisy??
That’s 3 democrat senators that’s been removed from office facing criminal charges….
This means democrats NO LONGER HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY…
Let’s hope that stays the case after 2014….
Goodbye dirtbag Yee. Ted Lieu and Carol, you’re next!
CoronitaParticipantApparently Lee is suspected of underage prostitution as well…..
Rot in hell.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]Wonder if there would be a market for renting out Title 20 compliant fixtures to new homebuyers till they replace with E26. 🙂 Seems that would be a lot more ecological than the homeowners just tossing the compliant fixtures into the trash.[/quote]
You mean kinda like if you fail smog, you borrow someone else’s catalytic converter?
Not saying I would do that, but some people asked me about it.
March 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM in reply to: SCA-5 Dead (for now..this year…)….Don’t let the Hernandez/senate bring it up in 2016… #772261CoronitaParticipantGood news my friends.
1… For those that haven’t been following. SCA-5 has been withdrawn…..Surprise surprise. Not enough interest to push it through after the huge backlash.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/social-affairs/20140323/sca-5-could-be-a-watershed-moment-for-asians
Defeat of ‘affirmative action’ bill SCA 5 could be a watershed moment for Asians
2. But even more interesting…
Breaking news. Senator Leland Yee has been arrested on corruption charges.. HA HA HA HA HA HA
ROT IN JAIL….
3 senators out on criminal charges…. Supermajority.. no more!!!! Today is a great day!
——-
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Leland-Yee-reportedly-arrested-in-corruption-case-5350602.phpCalifornia state Sen. Leland Yee arrested in corruption case
State Sen. Leland Yee was arrested on public corruption charges Wednesday morning in a federal investigation that also targeted Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, a notorious former San Francisco gangster, officials said.
The arrest of Yee, who represents San Francisco and a part of San Mateo County and is a candidate for California Secretary of State, came amid searches of his office in Sacramento and his home on 24th Avenue in San Francisco’s Sunset District.
Sources told The Chronicle that the predawn raids, carried out by hundreds of agents from the FBI and the IRS as well as local police officers, stemmed from a fatal shooting about five years ago.
FBI spokesman Peter Lee in San Francisco confirmed that Yee and Chow had been arrested. Both are to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins in San Francisco on Wednesday afternoon. Details of the case weren’t immediately released, and federal complaints in the matter were sealed.
Chow was once sentenced to 25 years in prison on gun charges but has insisted in recent years that he had gone straight.
Yee’s chief of staff was not immediately available for comment.
Local television cameras showed Yee being led away in handcuffs from his home and being placed in a waiting car that later pulled into an underground entrance of the federal building in San Francisco, which houses the FBI and district courtrooms.
Among the locations being searched was Bay Steel Inc. on Davidson Avenue in the Bayview neighborhood; a building on the 1700 block of Hyde Street; a home on the 600 block of 42nd Avenue in San Mateo; and Yee’s office in Sacramento, where California Highway Patrol officers were posted outside the door.
“All I know is at about 6 a.m. or so, these loud noises woke me up – I thought it was thunder,” said Ellen Smith, who lives on Hyde Street.
She said the unit being raided had been in a family for at least a generation and that the man who lives there now had inherited it from his parents when they died.
San Francisco police and the FBI were also searching the Ghee Kung Tong Supreme Lodge belonging to the Chinese Freemasons on Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Chow has served as head of the group.
Firefighters, armed with axes and a circular saw, were called to the scene mid-morning to help open a safe. The sound of sawing could be heard emerging from inside the building.
In 1992, the Hong Kong-born Chow was indicted with two dozen others on racketeering charges for their alleged involvement in everything from underage prostitution to the international heroin trade.
Chow was subsequently convicted of gun charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison. In 2003, however, he was released after he cut a deal with the government to testify against a high-ranking associate.
Democratic officials expressed shock at the development. California Democratic Party chair John Burton said he was completely unaware of the law enforcement move, and knew nothing about it.
Yee, a former San Francisco school board member and supervisor and member of the state Assembly, is a candidate for California Secretary of State, one of the state’s seven highest offices.
As a candidate, he has promised to “increase government transparency, support small businesses, reform campaign financing and protect the most vulnerable.”
He has portrayed himself as a vanguard on issues of political reform, and last year pushed legislation that launched California online voter registration.
Yee has drawn both praise and controversy for his efforts to tighten restrictions on semiautomatic rifles. In October, engineer Everett Basham pleaded guilty to sending an e-mail to Yee, threatening to use his purported sniper training to kill the senator.
This isn’t Yee’s first brush with the law. In 2000, Yee was arrested in Hawaii on suspicion of boosting an $8.09 bottle of suntan oil by putting it in the front of his shorts.
A year earlier, Yee was pulled over twice by San Francisco police officers who suspected him of cruising the Mission District in search of prostitutes. In both cases, police questioned Yee at the scene of the stops on South Van Ness Avenue and let him go on his way.
Yee, who championed putting a lid on massage parlors around the city, confirmed the stops, but said that in both cases he was the victim of mistaken identity.
March 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM in reply to: Study shows mortgage interest deduction doesn’t encourage home ownership #772260CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
2. Even if they were to take out a loan, it wouldn’t be reported as mortgage interest deduction on schedule A. Again it would be investment interest expense on schedule E.[/quote]
Not to be pedantic or anything, but interest paid while a property is being rehabbed may be investment interest, but it is not reported on schedule E. It would be reported on sched A (after a detour on Form 4952 where it’s limited to investment income) as investment interest, or probably more properly, capitalized as part of the cost of the property. Sched E is for reporting income for a trade or business that doesn’t go on Sched C or F. So if the property isn’t available for rent, the expenses shouldn’t (or at least legally can’t) be deducted there. “Investment interest” has a very specific meaning under the tax code, and it’s never deductible on schedule E.[/quote]
Noted…Sorry brain fart.
March 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM in reply to: Study shows mortgage interest deduction doesn’t encourage home ownership #772254CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=flu]
????? This doesn’t make sense…
You don’t get a mortgage interest deduction for speculation homes (IE your investment property(ies)) …
MID applies to primary homes and vacation homes, as long as you stay within the 1.1 million threshold.
Interest related to “investment property” fall under “investment expense” (schedule E)…It’s no different than any any sort of investment expense that you can report either for property or for other investments for that matter…It’s considered cost of doing business….No different than other expenses related to investment properties (repair costs, upgrade costs,etc,etc,etc)…
Even taking a loan out on your primary and using it for investments is considered investment expense.. You don’t deduct it on Schedule A if you were to do that… If instead you were to use borrowed money to invest on other things (stocks/mutual funds) that would fall under investment expense for stocks/mutual funds (not suggesting one should do that necessarily)…[/quote]
Right, I don’t think flippers should be able to deduct mortgage interest (or any expenses) when flipping homes, nor should they have access to any govt-backed/GSE loans. I get that they don’t usually deduct the mortgage interest in the same way that a primary owner/landlord does, but they do get to deduct it upon sale of the property. IOW, I think that there should be a *disincentive,* through the tax code and govt mortgage industry, to flipping homes.
“Investors” who buy existing homes to rent should also not get the MID in my ideal world. I totally understand the logic behind deductible expenses for business, but don’t think that buying up SFHs in areas where there is a high demand for this for-sale housing from organic/end buyers who are looking to buy a primary home is “running a business.” I’d rather see families — who are looking for a primary residence — have access to affordable homes that can be purchased with very conservative, traditional mortgages.
Again, I’m likely in the minority of one, but I have strong feelings about speculators and investors being in markets for basic necessities. Yes, I get that rental housing is still housing, but think that society is best served when the greatest possible number of people are in control of their own housing (stronger communities, lower crime rates, better maintained neighborhoods, etc.), and can benefit from owning a real asset and having a paid-off house upon retirement. I strongly dislike feudal societies and think we need to do everything in our power to prevent the concentration of power/wealth.[/quote]
Wait.
1. First of all, I thought flippers traditionally are cash buyers, no? At least they have to be if we’re talking foreclosures….
2. Even if they were to take out a loan, it wouldn’t be reported as mortgage interest deduction on schedule A. Again it would be investment interest expense on schedule E.
3. Flippers that take out a loan to flip a specific property isn’t paying *that* much interest anyway if the flip is really a flip. Maybe 1-3 months?
4. And I have a question. How can you tell a flipper from a non flipper/investor?
Seems to me you’re just asking for arbitrary restrictions on investments and or speculation…
So let me get this straight.. You’re suggesting that someone that speculates and earns money should be taxed for income. But someone that speculates and loses money should eat the costs…
How is this different from the reverse of this scenaro: a bank that earns money keeps the profits, but a bank that takes heavy losses, the government and taxpayer ends up picking up for the loss (sound familiar)?
And let’s take this one step further. Why stop at just flipping houses? Why not make this rule apply to all investments, including money you put into bonds, stocks, mutual funds, everything…
Everytime you earn a profit, you pay taxes on it. Every time you lose money, you can’t use it to offset your gain… That would also “discourage” speculation, (as well as sound investing) would it? When was the last time you lost money on a bad debt or bad investment? Did you write it off or not? Or have you had a perfect track record of never losing any money on any of your investments?
Seems to me, in the suggestion you are making, it’s government wins if you profit, government wins if you lose.
Uh, ok… I’m glad you’re not a politician and I’m glad this idea is not very popular…
March 25, 2014 at 7:09 PM in reply to: Study shows mortgage interest deduction doesn’t encourage home ownership #772248CoronitaParticipant[quote=The-Shoveler]I think this came up before, I think someone wanted to start a biz that match home owners to other home owners that would rent to each other LOL.
Actually not a bad Idea.[/quote]
Negatory……You would need to report the rent as rental income….
And even if your expenses exceeded your rental income, if your AGI is >$150k you wouldn’t be able to use loss to offset income from elsewhere…unless you happen to be a real estate professional…..And the phaseout of deduction rental losses starts at $100k.
March 25, 2014 at 5:04 PM in reply to: Study shows mortgage interest deduction doesn’t encourage home ownership #772242CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter]I need to clarify that I wasn’t suggesting eliminating the MI deduction for *primary buyers* who buy an existing home, though I’m not opposed to that, either. I’m talking about eliminating the MID for speculators and “investors” who buy existing homes.
In other words, I think that the tax code should not encourage speculation in basic necessities and commodities; it should encourage productive investments like building *new* buildings or expanding or improving productive capacity in some way (capital expenditure). I don’t think that people who are simply trying to buy food or housing should have to compete with well-funded, highly-leveraged “investors” who will greatly exaggerate price movements at the very worst times (when unusually high/low demand/supply are expected).[/quote]
????? This doesn’t make sense…
You don’t get a mortgage interest deduction for speculation homes (IE your investment property(ies)) …
MID applies to primary homes and vacation homes, as long as you stay within the 1.1 million threshold.
Interest related to “investment property” fall under “investment expense” (schedule E)…It’s no different than any any sort of investment expense that you can report either for property or for other investments for that matter…It’s considered cost of doing business….No different than other expenses related to investment properties (repair costs, upgrade costs,etc,etc,etc)…
Even taking a loan out on your primary and using it for investments is considered investment expense.. You don’t deduct it on Schedule A if you were to do that… If instead you were to use borrowed money to invest on other things (stocks/mutual funds) that would fall under investment expense for stocks/mutual funds (not suggesting one should do that necessarily)…
-
AuthorPosts
