Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drboom
Participant[quote=barnaby33]Seriously, 3 pages for this thread? Just buy the damned mini van already![/quote]
Dude, we’re all standing around waiting for Rich to crunch the latest Case-Schiller numbers. What else do you want to talk about? Elon? Kan(Ye)? Tons of other places to do that.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=drboom][quote=sdrealtor]
It’s just a car and won’t change anything. That is unless you’re the parent of young children. Then it’s life altering. Minivan is the only sound choice in that case[/quote]That’s not my experience, unless you have have enough rug rats to go from man to zone defense. My credentials: two teenagers born 2.5 years apart, for maximum baby/car seat time. Our oldest was actually aged out and then was legislated back into a car seat.
The best car experience we had, including various rental cars & minivans, for our two-car-seat years was our 2006 “Popemobile” Scion xB. The rear passenger doors and back seats were roomy, with ridiculous headroom. There were fewer places for an errant dirty diapers and assorted baby junk to hide, too. Finding somewhere to park was laughably easy and we hardly had to do a jot of work beyond maintenance on that car until my wife totaled it in 2015 or so with 110k miles–and we got 56% of what we paid new in the settlement!
The next car wasn’t bad (2013 Kia Soul+), but still better than a minibarge overall.
Everyone brings up road trips in this context. Only people who can’t do math go on long road trips in their own cars. We rent. This means we randomly end up in BMW X7s or whatever while paying the minivan price or less. We pay the extra insurance and don’t sweat it when some homeless guy goes nuts with a metal implement on the windows & windshield while we’re parked at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF.[/quote]
He also has older parents living with him. That seals the deal. Mini van it must be[/quote]
Well, I was referring to the part I quoted.
I guess if you have two+ kids and two grandparents who don’t drive and the whole crew gets schlepped around on the regular, that amounts to the zone defense I mentioned.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
It’s just a car and won’t change anything. That is unless you’re the parent of young children. Then it’s life altering. Minivan is the only sound choice in that case[/quote]That’s not my experience, unless you have have enough rug rats to go from man to zone defense. My credentials: two teenagers born 2.5 years apart, for maximum baby/car seat time. Our oldest was actually aged out and then was legislated back into a car seat.
The best car experience we had, including various rental cars & minivans, for our two-car-seat years was our 2006 “Popemobile” Scion xB. The rear passenger doors and back seats were roomy, with ridiculous headroom. There were fewer places for an errant dirty diapers and assorted baby junk to hide, too. Finding somewhere to park was laughably easy and we hardly had to do a jot of work beyond maintenance on that car until my wife totaled it in 2015 or so with 110k miles–and we got 56% of what we paid new in the settlement!
The next car wasn’t bad (2013 Kia Soul+), but still better than a minibarge overall.
Everyone brings up road trips in this context. Only people who can’t do math go on long road trips in their own cars. We rent. This means we randomly end up in BMW X7s or whatever while paying the minivan price or less. We pay the extra insurance and don’t sweat it when some homeless guy goes nuts with a metal implement on the windows & windshield while we’re parked at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]In Temecula, today, on the cheapest leaf, 30k, they want 8000 over sticker for add ons. Jeeeeez.
Mazda in Temecula is asking MSRP on everything[/quote]
We bought a 2022 Leaf SV about a year ago in what should have been an even worse environment than today. I’d heard about markups and such, but while we had to wait a week or two for our desired paint color to come up (we had feelers out with a few dealerships), we didn’t pay a dime over list and we of course were able to reap all the tax benefits.
Escondido Nissan made it ultra easy and even delivered & did paperwork on our dining table.
Is the market even worse now? I was under the impression that it had improved.
Participant[quote=Mishpacha House]The cops were telling him (repeatedly) to roll onto his stomach…he refused.
The guy was obviously being obstinate.[/quote]Bootlickers always find a way to justify these things.
The cops broke bones in his arm so badly he needed surgery, among other things. Is there some reason why they couldn’t stand back and let everyone cool down for a minute? The guy was on the ground after being zapped, he was unarmed, and there was overwhelming force present.
The suspect has a history of mental illness, as is so often the case, but our police are trained to respond to every situation in paramilitary terms so the outcome is predictable. Does anyone think beating a sick person with a stick will make them less ill? How about semi-controlled electrocution? What about the corrosive effect this kind of legally sanctioned torture has on society? Does it promote respect of the law and those who enforce it?
Psychiatric nurses routinely execute safe takedowns of violent mentally ill patients, why can’t the cops?
June 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762554ParticipantMy wife taught at Torrey Pines Elementary and was not impressed at all.
Poway schools are better but the reputation is undeserved IMO. If you put stock in test scores, just look at the similar schools rankings for Poway.
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2010Base_Dst.aspx?allcds=3768296
If you care about your kids’ education and have the means to do something about it you shouldn’t be looking at public schools anyway. If they let teachers teach it might be different …
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]As we have all discussed, monthly payment is a much stronger measure of affordability then sales price.[/quote]
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this popular but essentially meaningless statement is right out of the Realtor(tm) playbook.
Among other things, a higher sales price means higher property taxes in perpetuity, a higher down payment, higher insurance (possibly), higher sales transaction costs[1], etc.–and if you contend that higher sales prices can be made more “affordable” with lower interest rates, then you’d better account for the fact that the tax benefit as a portion of your mortgage payment is correspondingly lower. You’d better also factor in the time value of money for all the higher up front costs just mentioned.
Furthermore, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that you’ll get your money back out if you sell. For a lot of people a house purchase is a leveraged bet on rising home prices, and their bet is their down payment. Leverage works both ways, right? While not falling under the head of month-to-month “affordability”, this is an important consideration that folks in the RE industry–not necessarily you, so calm down–don’t like the sheeple to think about.
No, the best broad measure of “affordability” is sales price. Everything else is risky financial engineering at best and greedy boosterism at worst.
Besides, didn’t our esteemed host already make a strong case that interest rates have little correlation with selling price? This would tend to knock a huge hole in theories that make monthly payments the centerpiece of “affordability” calculations.
[1] These are paid by the buyer, period. OK?
[quote]I thing those that made the purchases will for the most part be fine regardless of market conditions as long as they have an income stream to continue paying the mortgages. For the most part they will also enjoy a quality of life that FOR THEM is superior to those who rent.[/quote]
Yes, and the intangibles count for a lot. It pays to be hard nosed about such things, however.
In my own case, I couldn’t afford to rent the joint I bought at the “bottom” in June 2009. I reckon the return on my down payment is well in excess of 10%/year net just figuring the difference between my all-in costs (ignoring tax benefits, etc.) and what rent would be. If worse comes to worst, my family will move into our motor home and we’ll rent the place out for enough of a profit to keep food on the table.
I wouldn’t have bought under any other terms: either the place is a no-brainer as a rental property or it’s dumb to buy (or you have money to speculate/gamble with, which I don’t). Why tie up so much money in a depreciating “asset” otherwise?
But other folks have other ideas. As long as “owning” your subdivided little slice of Southern California heaven doesn’t keep you awake at night, I suppose it’s a good buy. 🙂
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]As we have all discussed, monthly payment is a much stronger measure of affordability then sales price.[/quote]
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this popular but essentially meaningless statement is right out of the Realtor(tm) playbook.
Among other things, a higher sales price means higher property taxes in perpetuity, a higher down payment, higher insurance (possibly), higher sales transaction costs[1], etc.–and if you contend that higher sales prices can be made more “affordable” with lower interest rates, then you’d better account for the fact that the tax benefit as a portion of your mortgage payment is correspondingly lower. You’d better also factor in the time value of money for all the higher up front costs just mentioned.
Furthermore, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that you’ll get your money back out if you sell. For a lot of people a house purchase is a leveraged bet on rising home prices, and their bet is their down payment. Leverage works both ways, right? While not falling under the head of month-to-month “affordability”, this is an important consideration that folks in the RE industry–not necessarily you, so calm down–don’t like the sheeple to think about.
No, the best broad measure of “affordability” is sales price. Everything else is risky financial engineering at best and greedy boosterism at worst.
Besides, didn’t our esteemed host already make a strong case that interest rates have little correlation with selling price? This would tend to knock a huge hole in theories that make monthly payments the centerpiece of “affordability” calculations.
[1] These are paid by the buyer, period. OK?
[quote]I thing those that made the purchases will for the most part be fine regardless of market conditions as long as they have an income stream to continue paying the mortgages. For the most part they will also enjoy a quality of life that FOR THEM is superior to those who rent.[/quote]
Yes, and the intangibles count for a lot. It pays to be hard nosed about such things, however.
In my own case, I couldn’t afford to rent the joint I bought at the “bottom” in June 2009. I reckon the return on my down payment is well in excess of 10%/year net just figuring the difference between my all-in costs (ignoring tax benefits, etc.) and what rent would be. If worse comes to worst, my family will move into our motor home and we’ll rent the place out for enough of a profit to keep food on the table.
I wouldn’t have bought under any other terms: either the place is a no-brainer as a rental property or it’s dumb to buy (or you have money to speculate/gamble with, which I don’t). Why tie up so much money in a depreciating “asset” otherwise?
But other folks have other ideas. As long as “owning” your subdivided little slice of Southern California heaven doesn’t keep you awake at night, I suppose it’s a good buy. 🙂
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]As we have all discussed, monthly payment is a much stronger measure of affordability then sales price.[/quote]
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this popular but essentially meaningless statement is right out of the Realtor(tm) playbook.
Among other things, a higher sales price means higher property taxes in perpetuity, a higher down payment, higher insurance (possibly), higher sales transaction costs[1], etc.–and if you contend that higher sales prices can be made more “affordable” with lower interest rates, then you’d better account for the fact that the tax benefit as a portion of your mortgage payment is correspondingly lower. You’d better also factor in the time value of money for all the higher up front costs just mentioned.
Furthermore, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that you’ll get your money back out if you sell. For a lot of people a house purchase is a leveraged bet on rising home prices, and their bet is their down payment. Leverage works both ways, right? While not falling under the head of month-to-month “affordability”, this is an important consideration that folks in the RE industry–not necessarily you, so calm down–don’t like the sheeple to think about.
No, the best broad measure of “affordability” is sales price. Everything else is risky financial engineering at best and greedy boosterism at worst.
Besides, didn’t our esteemed host already make a strong case that interest rates have little correlation with selling price? This would tend to knock a huge hole in theories that make monthly payments the centerpiece of “affordability” calculations.
[1] These are paid by the buyer, period. OK?
[quote]I thing those that made the purchases will for the most part be fine regardless of market conditions as long as they have an income stream to continue paying the mortgages. For the most part they will also enjoy a quality of life that FOR THEM is superior to those who rent.[/quote]
Yes, and the intangibles count for a lot. It pays to be hard nosed about such things, however.
In my own case, I couldn’t afford to rent the joint I bought at the “bottom” in June 2009. I reckon the return on my down payment is well in excess of 10%/year net just figuring the difference between my all-in costs (ignoring tax benefits, etc.) and what rent would be. If worse comes to worst, my family will move into our motor home and we’ll rent the place out for enough of a profit to keep food on the table.
I wouldn’t have bought under any other terms: either the place is a no-brainer as a rental property or it’s dumb to buy (or you have money to speculate/gamble with, which I don’t). Why tie up so much money in a depreciating “asset” otherwise?
But other folks have other ideas. As long as “owning” your subdivided little slice of Southern California heaven doesn’t keep you awake at night, I suppose it’s a good buy. 🙂
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]As we have all discussed, monthly payment is a much stronger measure of affordability then sales price.[/quote]
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this popular but essentially meaningless statement is right out of the Realtor(tm) playbook.
Among other things, a higher sales price means higher property taxes in perpetuity, a higher down payment, higher insurance (possibly), higher sales transaction costs[1], etc.–and if you contend that higher sales prices can be made more “affordable” with lower interest rates, then you’d better account for the fact that the tax benefit as a portion of your mortgage payment is correspondingly lower. You’d better also factor in the time value of money for all the higher up front costs just mentioned.
Furthermore, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that you’ll get your money back out if you sell. For a lot of people a house purchase is a leveraged bet on rising home prices, and their bet is their down payment. Leverage works both ways, right? While not falling under the head of month-to-month “affordability”, this is an important consideration that folks in the RE industry–not necessarily you, so calm down–don’t like the sheeple to think about.
No, the best broad measure of “affordability” is sales price. Everything else is risky financial engineering at best and greedy boosterism at worst.
Besides, didn’t our esteemed host already make a strong case that interest rates have little correlation with selling price? This would tend to knock a huge hole in theories that make monthly payments the centerpiece of “affordability” calculations.
[1] These are paid by the buyer, period. OK?
[quote]I thing those that made the purchases will for the most part be fine regardless of market conditions as long as they have an income stream to continue paying the mortgages. For the most part they will also enjoy a quality of life that FOR THEM is superior to those who rent.[/quote]
Yes, and the intangibles count for a lot. It pays to be hard nosed about such things, however.
In my own case, I couldn’t afford to rent the joint I bought at the “bottom” in June 2009. I reckon the return on my down payment is well in excess of 10%/year net just figuring the difference between my all-in costs (ignoring tax benefits, etc.) and what rent would be. If worse comes to worst, my family will move into our motor home and we’ll rent the place out for enough of a profit to keep food on the table.
I wouldn’t have bought under any other terms: either the place is a no-brainer as a rental property or it’s dumb to buy (or you have money to speculate/gamble with, which I don’t). Why tie up so much money in a depreciating “asset” otherwise?
But other folks have other ideas. As long as “owning” your subdivided little slice of Southern California heaven doesn’t keep you awake at night, I suppose it’s a good buy. 🙂
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]As we have all discussed, monthly payment is a much stronger measure of affordability then sales price.[/quote]
Sorry, and not to pick on you, but this popular but essentially meaningless statement is right out of the Realtor(tm) playbook.
Among other things, a higher sales price means higher property taxes in perpetuity, a higher down payment, higher insurance (possibly), higher sales transaction costs[1], etc.–and if you contend that higher sales prices can be made more “affordable” with lower interest rates, then you’d better account for the fact that the tax benefit as a portion of your mortgage payment is correspondingly lower. You’d better also factor in the time value of money for all the higher up front costs just mentioned.
Furthermore, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that you’ll get your money back out if you sell. For a lot of people a house purchase is a leveraged bet on rising home prices, and their bet is their down payment. Leverage works both ways, right? While not falling under the head of month-to-month “affordability”, this is an important consideration that folks in the RE industry–not necessarily you, so calm down–don’t like the sheeple to think about.
No, the best broad measure of “affordability” is sales price. Everything else is risky financial engineering at best and greedy boosterism at worst.
Besides, didn’t our esteemed host already make a strong case that interest rates have little correlation with selling price? This would tend to knock a huge hole in theories that make monthly payments the centerpiece of “affordability” calculations.
[1] These are paid by the buyer, period. OK?
[quote]I thing those that made the purchases will for the most part be fine regardless of market conditions as long as they have an income stream to continue paying the mortgages. For the most part they will also enjoy a quality of life that FOR THEM is superior to those who rent.[/quote]
Yes, and the intangibles count for a lot. It pays to be hard nosed about such things, however.
In my own case, I couldn’t afford to rent the joint I bought at the “bottom” in June 2009. I reckon the return on my down payment is well in excess of 10%/year net just figuring the difference between my all-in costs (ignoring tax benefits, etc.) and what rent would be. If worse comes to worst, my family will move into our motor home and we’ll rent the place out for enough of a profit to keep food on the table.
I wouldn’t have bought under any other terms: either the place is a no-brainer as a rental property or it’s dumb to buy (or you have money to speculate/gamble with, which I don’t). Why tie up so much money in a depreciating “asset” otherwise?
But other folks have other ideas. As long as “owning” your subdivided little slice of Southern California heaven doesn’t keep you awake at night, I suppose it’s a good buy. 🙂
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
[quote=PatentGuy]Do any of you really believe that if taxed were raised […] the deficit will be any less five or ten years from now?[/quote]Yes.
I even saw it happen. It was a magical thing, we called it a “surplus.” It existed in a time we called “the late 1990s.”[/quote]
Please don’t trot out this canard. The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.
The Shrub and Obama both continued the dishonesty.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
[quote=PatentGuy]Do any of you really believe that if taxed were raised […] the deficit will be any less five or ten years from now?[/quote]Yes.
I even saw it happen. It was a magical thing, we called it a “surplus.” It existed in a time we called “the late 1990s.”[/quote]
Please don’t trot out this canard. The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.
The Shrub and Obama both continued the dishonesty.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
[quote=PatentGuy]Do any of you really believe that if taxed were raised […] the deficit will be any less five or ten years from now?[/quote]Yes.
I even saw it happen. It was a magical thing, we called it a “surplus.” It existed in a time we called “the late 1990s.”[/quote]
Please don’t trot out this canard. The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.
The Shrub and Obama both continued the dishonesty.
-
AuthorPosts