Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 8, 2007 at 8:25 AM in reply to: California real estate prices versus North Carolina and Florida #47128
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participantjust banking the money and owing at the end of the year also, kind of how we did it last year
That’s OK, but watch out for penalties, though.
You may owe penalties if you owe more than $1000.
You can avoid a penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes if you meet a “safe harbor” payment amount: the smaller of 90 percent of what is ultimately owed or a percentage of the taxes you paid in the previous year. If you make less than $150,000, the safe harbor is 100 percent of the previous year’s taxes. If you make more than $150,000, the prior-year safe harbor percentage is more than 100 percent.
IRS Pub 505 for details.ParticipantMy wife were recently married, this is our first full year as a married couple for taxes. When we did our taxes this year, we owe a pretty decent amount.
I have 1 selected for deductions and she has 0, when it’s my income, we are fine but when we add another income it goes south fast. If we take off mine and just run with hers we are fine, but add mine and we owe, we go from something like an 1800 return to owing 2200. After state we are creeping towards 4k owed. OUCH!
Are we being dinged for being married w/o children?
I don’t think so.
There used to be a marriage penalty before a few years ago. But, tax brackets and standard deductions have been adjusted to reduce the impact of the “marriage penalty”. The current standard deduction for married/filing joint is 2x the single standard deduction. Also the tax rates have been adjusted so that the income cut-offs for brackets to 2x single.Not sure what you mean that you “have 1 selected for deductions and she has 0” ? Is this on your W-4 for withholding or what you enter into your tax software for exemptions ?
Are you saying that you owe 4000 more by being married rather than single ? Or are you saying that if you ignore your income you would owe 4000 less than if you include your income, but keeping everything else constant ? If so, are you still assuming that you are filing married or single.
I believe that you simply are not having enough taxes withheld from your paycheck. Look at your W-4 carefully. If you are a dual income family and each of you makes more than about 40K, when you fill out your W-4 look at the two-earner/multiple jobs worksheet. If you follow those instructions it will likely tell you that you need to claim 0, AND have additional money taken out of each paycheck.
March 6, 2007 at 9:45 AM in reply to: Why will Coronado prices continue to rise or will they? #47012ParticipantCoronado has gone through a paradigm shift to a new normal and will experience a soft landing, since it is its own island.
[/sarcasm off]
ParticipantCardiffBaseball –
I think the proof is in the pudding. Seems like sub-prime lenders are going bankrupt at the rate of one per week. Their businesses are failing for a reason. They are bleeding money/ I doubt that there will be a significant amount of others willing to step up and fill their shoes simply for the opportunity to lose money.
ParticipantI would suggest that you post your questions, rather than simply asking if there are experts out here. Many of us do not consider ourselves experts, but probably have experienced some of the same issues you have questions about. I for one think I am very good at paying way too much in taxes.
Also, if you ask specific questions, the answers can be reviewed by others and you can be saved from bad advice that way.
So, go for it. There are no dumb questions about taxes. Just dumb tax laws and rules to wade through.
ParticipantChris Johnston
I will take the other side of that bet, or the “over” if you want to label it in sports terminology.
I also “predict” that the S&P will not decline by 40% before August, as spelled out in the revised forecast.
Of course, if I am wrong it is because the market is delusional.
ParticipantWhat a ridiculous thread… most of the dudes posting here have balls bigger no bigger than peas to begin with.. not suprising they would criticize a persons guess or projection with conviction.. maybe they were foolish enough to follow this prediction??
Anyone looking for credit in their predictions or to bash others, while highlighting the rare cases where they were correct – are simply insecure and obviously didn’t capitalize on their own predictions enough because they’re still in here rather than golfing all day in Rancho Sante Fe.
… and the point is what ?
Are you golfing in Ranch Sante Fe today?
ParticipantI’d be prepared for a 20% or more drop in stocks during the next recession.
ParticipantDowntown SD is MUCH more attractive to me than downtown LA.
I currently live in LA’s westside and the climate is much better here than downtown in many respects beyond the weather.What I fund funny is that the city that historically leads the country in trends (fashion, etc) is SOOOO far behind the downtown condo boom. I mean, it hit Fort Worth Texas a few years ago for goodness sakes.
ParticipantPD –
I remember the other thread along the same lines as you. It is correct that stocks have fallen in recessions which was the general premise there. It is also probably a good bet that the S&P 500 will drop significantly in the next recession. I’ll grant those points.But I think it absolutely clear what is stated in this thread.
It was stated that the S&P500 will drop to 600 by Spring 2007. (That’s a drop from 1301 at that point to 600 … a 53% drop) The reasoning was based on the HMI index being correlated with a certain lag with the Stock market.I personally don’t care if we re-interpret it as a 53% drop by Spring, Summer or Fall 2007. My opinion is that that re-interpretation will turn out to be incorrect as well.
If we re-interpret that the stocks will drop by Spring 2007, to the same levels as it was when this was originally posted it might be correct.
My problem is directly linking the magnitude of a drop in item A, simply because it is correlated with item B and item B drops by 53%. This is naive, she succumbed to someone’s cherry picked 10-year segment of a time series and made a naive conclusion.
If you look back at page one of this thread, where I plotted a longer range time series you can see that there are large movements in HMI that result in very little movement in S&P 500. In fact 1989-1990 saw a 64% decline in the HMI, while the S&P 500 declined by about a 15%. That was heading into the July 1990 – March 1991 recession.
That’s right a 64% decline in the HMI led to a 15% decline in S&P 500, not a 64% decline.
I am re-posting the plot to which I refer below for convenience.
[img_assist|nid=1399|title=S&P and HMI|desc=Plot of S&P 500 and NAHB/WF HMI index.|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=314]
ParticipantThe odds of a two-sigma event (on the right hand tail of the normal distribution – as in a bubble) NOT being representative of a bubble condition (assuming that the calculations were done properly) is around 2.2%.
Almost. The odds of a +2 sigma event occurring is around 2.2 %, based on a Normal distribution.
The odds of a +2 sigma event NOT reverting to the mean (by Grantham’s measure) is 1/28 = or 3.6%.(One is not quite enough samples, but you get my drift).
Anyway, I agree that the odds that we are NOT in a RE bubble that will revert to the mean in terms of rents, salaries and prices is small.
Participant4plex – I think my primary point is lost. For the moment forget the term bubble, and ignore the current housing bubble …
If someone tells me that we have had an economic event (let’s call it a “zonk”) at a rate of once every 2.5 years over the past 70 years, then I would assume that these “zonks” are typical and perhaps necessary cyclical economic events. If someone told me that the current housing situation has the same characteristics as one of these “zonks” I would not be inclined to lose a lot of sleep over it. Since on the surface these “zonks” happen all the time.
… back to reality …
The problem is that when the current housing bubble is cast in the same category as these other bubbles that happen every couple of years makes it seem less daunting than it actually is.ParticipantNice work sdcellar.
These numbers are representative of someone with an income of 100K or so (I’m assuming PITI = 35% of income).
So, for this example, the buyer can choose between
A. renting a house and making new car payments
B. buying and driving their older, paid-off vehicle.When buyers in income ranges of 60-70K can make this same choice (tougher because of the compressed tax advantage), it might be time to buy. I’m guessing we are about 20% overpriced before we hit that point.
ParticipantThe biggest ‘smoking gun’ in my mind is this: prior to 9/11 no metal-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire – there had even been several high-rise buildings that burned vigorously for hours without collapsing – and when the first metal-framed building in the history of the world collapses due to fire what happens?
The biggest smoking gun you can point to is that “no metal-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire” ?
OK answer this one:
Exactly how many metal-frame buildings have withstood being hit at 300 mph by jet-fuel-filled jetliners prior to 9/11 ? -
AuthorPosts
