[El Jefe]

No… current Roth limits apply to both contributions AND conversions.

BUT… the good news… the most recent changes to the tax code will lift the income limit for conversions from traditional to Roth in 2010. That means you can make non-deductible donations to a regular IRA now, and then do the conversion in 2010 assuming that the law does not change between now and then.

Also… IIRC… All of your non-deductible contributions will move into a Roth in 2010 tax free because they were after tax contributions.

Keep your fingers crossed that congress is too busy spending money in Iraq to close this loophole before 2010.

[El Jefe]

That is my wife’s plan. Unlike a lot of the other sucker FBs here in SD, I opted to keep my B**ls out of her purse.

HA! Sounds like a recently-wed that hasn’t stuck his hands in his pants in a while. It happens so cleanly and quietly you don’t even realize that their gone until it’s too late.

[El Jefe]

That is my wife’s plan. Unlike a lot of the other sucker FBs here in SD, I opted to keep my B**ls out of her purse.

HA! Sounds like a recently-wed that hasn’t stuck his hands in his pants in a while. It happens so cleanly and quietly you don’t even realize that their gone until it’s too late.

[El Jefe]

What is interesting is it sounds like the 2nd took possession through foreclosure and then failed to make the 1st solvent and will in turn have the first lien foreclosed losing their interest.

I suspect a judge will say tough cookies to the 2nd holder for any recourse since the 2nd failed to liquidate the property in a prompt fashion there by potentially rectifying any short fall. Essentially, the 2nd’s interest may get liquidated if they let the first foreclose.

In this case… or just about any situation where there exists a 1st and a 2nd or HELOC… the 2TD/HELOC is fully subordinate to the 1st. There would be no way that the holder of the 2nd/HELOC could sell the property independent of the 1st LH, making the holder of the 1st whole again in the process, as the outstanding lein from the 1st would show up all over any title report on the property. No insurance company would insure the title, and no bank would lend to purchase the property with the 1st lein outstanding. And the 1st TD lein is not going anywhere until they either get their money or they forclose and take posession of the property.

In the world of leinholders, the 2nd/HELOC folks really are the guys bent over the cash registers, and the holder of the 2nd/HELOC foreclosing would serve no other purpose other than puting themselves in a better position to light a fire inder the 1st leinholder in hopes of getting the house to market and sold quickly, as they sit there and watch their money evaporate as prices fall.

[El Jefe]

What is interesting is it sounds like the 2nd took possession through foreclosure and then failed to make the 1st solvent and will in turn have the first lien foreclosed losing their interest.

I suspect a judge will say tough cookies to the 2nd holder for any recourse since the 2nd failed to liquidate the property in a prompt fashion there by potentially rectifying any short fall. Essentially, the 2nd’s interest may get liquidated if they let the first foreclose.

In this case… or just about any situation where there exists a 1st and a 2nd or HELOC… the 2TD/HELOC is fully subordinate to the 1st. There would be no way that the holder of the 2nd/HELOC could sell the property independent of the 1st LH, making the holder of the 1st whole again in the process, as the outstanding lein from the 1st would show up all over any title report on the property. No insurance company would insure the title, and no bank would lend to purchase the property with the 1st lein outstanding. And the 1st TD lein is not going anywhere until they either get their money or they forclose and take posession of the property.

In the world of leinholders, the 2nd/HELOC folks really are the guys bent over the cash registers, and the holder of the 2nd/HELOC foreclosing would serve no other purpose other than puting themselves in a better position to light a fire inder the 1st leinholder in hopes of getting the house to market and sold quickly, as they sit there and watch their money evaporate as prices fall.

[El Jefe]

Under normal circumstances I would tend to agree. You could easily move ahead under the “proceed and ignore” policy. The unions would sue and Gaylord would likely prevail in court

Unfortunately the game changes DRAMATICALLY when there is litigation against the EIS. All the union has to do is find 1 vernal pool created by their own tire tracks, or a single burrowing owl nest and the whole thing can get VERY MESSY. Everyone knows that if someone looks hard enough they will find at least 1 endangered/protected species on a coastal site that size, and in a worst case scenario, Gaylord could be required to purchase a similar property (location, size) to relocate all endangered species and deed the property to be held as open space indefinately.

All the support in the world from the city of Chulajuana wouldn’t do Gaylord a bit of good if the Unions challenged the EIR in court and dragged the State/Fed EPA into it.

Unless the city was willing to accept ALL responsibility and liability for producing a clean EIR on the site, on the first mention of challenging the EIR, walking away was clearly the best exit strategy for Gaylord.

[El Jefe]

Under normal circumstances I would tend to agree. You could easily move ahead under the “proceed and ignore” policy. The unions would sue and Gaylord would likely prevail in court

Unfortunately the game changes DRAMATICALLY when there is litigation against the EIS. All the union has to do is find 1 vernal pool created by their own tire tracks, or a single burrowing owl nest and the whole thing can get VERY MESSY. Everyone knows that if someone looks hard enough they will find at least 1 endangered/protected species on a coastal site that size, and in a worst case scenario, Gaylord could be required to purchase a similar property (location, size) to relocate all endangered species and deed the property to be held as open space indefinately.

All the support in the world from the city of Chulajuana wouldn’t do Gaylord a bit of good if the Unions challenged the EIR in court and dragged the State/Fed EPA into it.

Unless the city was willing to accept ALL responsibility and liability for producing a clean EIR on the site, on the first mention of challenging the EIR, walking away was clearly the best exit strategy for Gaylord.

[El Jefe]

EJ, I think that the controlling phrase is “…person not authorized by that provider…”

Actually… the fine print in the acceptable use policy of just about all RESIDENTIAL service providers strictly prohibits the use of any user supplied IP translation devices (routers/access points), unless of course you spring for their “networking package”, which is usually crippled to 2 or 4 systems total.

Just about everyone who has more than 1 computer and their own router in their house is in violation of their ISP’s contract.

If we really want to split hairs here, everyone with a router should legally be paying for either several IP addresses, or the ISP supplied networking package.

To the OP… I’ll gladly trade you access on my Access Point for some lemons.

[El Jefe]

EJ, I think that the controlling phrase is “…person not authorized by that provider…”

Actually… the fine print in the acceptable use policy of just about all RESIDENTIAL service providers strictly prohibits the use of any user supplied IP translation devices (routers/access points), unless of course you spring for their “networking package”, which is usually crippled to 2 or 4 systems total.

Just about everyone who has more than 1 computer and their own router in their house is in violation of their ISP’s contract.

If we really want to split hairs here, everyone with a router should legally be paying for either several IP addresses, or the ISP supplied networking package.

To the OP… I’ll gladly trade you access on my Access Point for some lemons.

[El Jefe]

Section 593d.
any person who, for the purpose of intercepting, receiving, or using any program or other service carried by a multichannel video or information services provider that the person is not authorized by that provider to receive or use, commits any of the following acts is guilty of a
public offense.

I think that you may be in the sticky gray area here. My guess is that the “service providers” service stops at the end of a wire entering the house, with a contract to provide a certain amount of bandwidth over that wire. The wireless access point likely belongs to the neighbor, and he can at his discression divy up his bandwidth with his own networking equipment any way he sees fit. Sharing with the neighbor would be no different legally than sharing with a family member/roommate. Steal access from Sprint or Verizon and the above would apply.

[El Jefe]

Section 593d.
any person who, for the purpose of intercepting, receiving, or using any program or other service carried by a multichannel video or information services provider that the person is not authorized by that provider to receive or use, commits any of the following acts is guilty of a
public offense.

I think that you may be in the sticky gray area here. My guess is that the “service providers” service stops at the end of a wire entering the house, with a contract to provide a certain amount of bandwidth over that wire. The wireless access point likely belongs to the neighbor, and he can at his discression divy up his bandwidth with his own networking equipment any way he sees fit. Sharing with the neighbor would be no different legally than sharing with a family member/roommate. Steal access from Sprint or Verizon and the above would apply.

[El Jefe]

Tithe to your children’s future…..

This is the best advice I have heard yet… Don’t count on charity OR divine intervention when it comes time to start writing those college checks.

[El Jefe]

Tithe to your children’s future…..

This is the best advice I have heard yet… Don’t count on charity OR divine intervention when it comes time to start writing those college checks.

[El Jefe]

I think that we are still some time away from seeing reel price reductions on bank owned properties. At the moment all the banks are still flushed with cash and the forclosures are just starting to come in mass. The last thing that the banks want to do is destroy their own pricing power, and will do everything possible to avoid price reductions and flooding the market. Eevntually, the banks will run out of free cash and will be forced to move property off their books quickly, but I don’t see that happening until the banks have to start cancelling yearly bonuses for the C*O’s to bolster their capital reserves. Likely FY08 at the earliest.

[El Jefe]

I think that we are still some time away from seeing reel price reductions on bank owned properties. At the moment all the banks are still flushed with cash and the forclosures are just starting to come in mass. The last thing that the banks want to do is destroy their own pricing power, and will do everything possible to avoid price reductions and flooding the market. Eevntually, the banks will run out of free cash and will be forced to move property off their books quickly, but I don’t see that happening until the banks have to start cancelling yearly bonuses for the C*O’s to bolster their capital reserves. Likely FY08 at the earliest.

[Author]

Posts