Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Doooh
ParticipantI think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.
A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.
Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.
I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.
ParticipantI think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.
A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.
Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.
I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.
ParticipantI think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.
A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.
Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.
I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]
Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]
Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:
“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”
Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”
That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.
If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:
http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4
If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?
If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.
If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.
Rich[/quote]
Bravo, carry on.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]
Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]
Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:
“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”
Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”
That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.
If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:
http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4
If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?
If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.
If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.
Rich[/quote]
Bravo, carry on.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]
Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]
Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:
“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”
Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”
That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.
If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:
http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4
If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?
If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.
If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.
Rich[/quote]
Bravo, carry on.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]
Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]
Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:
“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”
Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”
That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.
If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:
http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4
If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?
If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.
If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.
Rich[/quote]
Bravo, carry on.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]
Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]
Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:
“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”
Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”
That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.
If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:
http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4
If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?
If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.
If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.
Rich[/quote]
Bravo, carry on.
ParticipantYou’d also need to find a way to keep your $500,000 split up into 5 different accounts to keep it under the $100k FDIC limit.
1 for you
1 for your wife
1 jointlyYou’d need to find another bank for the last $200,000
ParticipantYou’d also need to find a way to keep your $500,000 split up into 5 different accounts to keep it under the $100k FDIC limit.
1 for you
1 for your wife
1 jointlyYou’d need to find another bank for the last $200,000
ParticipantYou’d also need to find a way to keep your $500,000 split up into 5 different accounts to keep it under the $100k FDIC limit.
1 for you
1 for your wife
1 jointlyYou’d need to find another bank for the last $200,000
ParticipantYou’d also need to find a way to keep your $500,000 split up into 5 different accounts to keep it under the $100k FDIC limit.
1 for you
1 for your wife
1 jointlyYou’d need to find another bank for the last $200,000
ParticipantYou’d also need to find a way to keep your $500,000 split up into 5 different accounts to keep it under the $100k FDIC limit.
1 for you
1 for your wife
1 jointlyYou’d need to find another bank for the last $200,000
Participant[quote=MountainBound]If I were to take a 5% loan,effective rate would be around 3.6% with the tax break, then get into 10-year treasury when rates are over 10%, I think it might work. Worse comes to worse and rates never go up, I could pay off the loan and be done with it. I’m sure there are risks, but I’m confident the financial mess will get much worse from here. What do you think?[/quote]
It would only be a 3.6% effective rate for the first year and goes back to 5% every year after that. At about 15 years (I think) your, principal/intrest ratio would be so low that you wouldn’t have a tax write off.
If you lost your job, or source of income your effective rate would rocket back to 5% because you wouldn’t have an income to write off.
So, let’s do some easy math on a $500,000 home loan.
Year 1 your cost is $18,000 to barrow the $500k. You can make 1% easily in savings accounts which offsets your cost by 5,000.Year 1 your in the hole $13,000
Year 2 = ? (Now we have to get the mortgage calculator out because I don’t know what the Principal would be) It’s a safe assumption to be making 1.5% in a FDIC insured savings account by 2012.
Help anybody?
-
AuthorPosts