[joec]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
BTW, I don’t look at high end houses when comparing rent to mortgage. I look at 2/2 condos, townhouses. Like I said before, UTC/La Jolla, Mira Mesa are a good gauge because that’s where tech worker settle when they enter San Diego. Then after a couple years, they look to buy. I like to look at new construction prices for comparison.

My intuition says that if someone is paying $2,200 rent for a townhouse in UTC, they’d be willing to pay $3,500 to buy a much larger house at 4S, assuming they have the income, of course.[/quote]

Exactly…A house price is just a number and people are more interested in their monthly nut compared to what they have to pay in rent…

As I mentioned in another post, if your income is half decent and I assume anyone buying now MUST have decent income, that 3500 mortgage becomes about the same as the rental after the tax deduction so it’s easy for them to buy since the rent is the same and they’d rather live with more space, “better” schools, more “families” and “neighborhood”, etc…

In regards to these expensive (1 mil+) houses, as mentioned and what I’ve witnessed firsthand from many people known/met in my limited circle (asian/chinese mostly) has had family money help them buy. This is in Bay Area, LA, SD, etc…Talking about 1-1.5 mil places that their income would be impossible to support. Of course, not everyone has that help, but enough do based on the available inventory. Asians also “love” real estate and trust it more than, say stocks/bonds, etc…

I can count on my 1 hand how many people didn’t have help.

Oh, lastly, just from all the divergent view points even here, I will say again that the MID isn’t going away anytime soon…

[joec]

Unfortunately/Fortunately, a lot of newer areas will have an HOA.

I see the problem as more of how condos just are. You need to share a lot of common areas which may not reflect what and how you’d want to live.

I’d never buy a condo, and I’d recommend trying to move up, if possible to a single family even if you don’t need the space.

Maybe a lot of people are aloof because they just rent and don’t care?

[joec]

I suppose one “benefit” of some HOAs is that they limit how many dogs can be in a property…If you knew the previous owner, maybe they don’t know they have dogs? Most insurance companies don’t like to insure pit bulls, let alone, 3 of them. The owner renting to them is waiting for a lawsuit to happen IMO.

I’d be very concerned about the dogs myself, especially with small children or even without small children, pitbulls scare me and are usually owned by crazy owners with self esteem issues who thinks a dog makes them tougher.

Pictures would be nice to see. 🙂

[joec]

[quote=moneymaker]Pretty sure that for a lot of us the MID is phased out with time, by the time you are halfway through paying on the mortgage the interest is pretty negligible compared to standard deduction, again that is just for most of us, does not apply to people that buy Mac Mansions or can itemize a lot of stuff (business owners).[/quote]

One reason to refinance at year 10 or 15 of your loan to a 15 year at that time. Assuming the lower rate would make it close to the 30 year payment, you can continue to deduct the interest…

The problem with any changes now and why nothing will be done is that a lot of the comments here are biased as to what won’t “hurt me” or said poster as much or people in elected office.

The tax code is too screwed up so any large scale changes would be near impossible to pass.

The problem with your idea CAR of not letting people who buy existing homes deduct MID is that now, you have just as much assisted all the new home builders/big businesses since now, people are more likely to want to buy new to get the MID…This point is why trying to “fix” this issue on what might be a good idea can’t be done and I’d vote for either running 2 systems and take your pick and see what happens before forced changes or have massive deductions for all (lower state revenue) which screws up the state further though.

Also, it’s not that your idea is in the minority…I think you posted that you are trying to eliminate all of your debt so your suggestion is very biased…

again, my point is that you (and everyone involved) are just looking out for their own interests rather than what’s fair/right/etc…so you’d want to eliminate something which won’t benefit you so you don’t care if it’s gone.

I plainly admit I am more interested in what works out better for me than what’s fair since there is no fair system already and I just try to do it all to take advantage of what makes the most sense…

Sorta like as I have very little Roth accounts now, let’s just start to tax that too.

[joec]

Wouldn’t this be easily solved if you just asked? If they are your direct neighbors, you would probably see them enough to chit-chat, etc…

Could be any number of the things above, or maybe their parents are on travel, who knows. Seems easier to not speculate and just ask. I assume they look like riff-raff people and not biz people, or oldest profession people?

[joec]

[quote=FlyerInHi]For the more entrepreneurial and leveraged, mortgage interest deduction works out better, I think.[/quote]

This is very true…Again, any change is going hurt one party and help another so they need to take a baseline of what we have now, and consider what to change since it’ll hurt someone.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of us just wants what will be better for ourselves. It’s selfish, but such is society and life nowadays.

The point about the MID not helping a lot of flyover states is more because their mortgage is just too low because their housing cost is too low compared to the standard deduction. With it being $12,400 now, if you aren’t paying more than that in MID, you’re better off probably using the standard deduction…depends on other items of course as well (donations, etc)…but it’s not an issue with the MID itself.

Say you are someone who is a business owner and have lots of business expenses or simply decide to keep growing your business and run it at a loss (lots of tech companies do this actually)…Your tax rate is essentially 0 so taking away the MID which you might be using to offset, say IRA withdrawals or something hurts people who aren’t pure w-2 earners.

I would vote for having simultaneous plans and you choose whichever one helps you better.

I honestly doubt the gov’ment folks can work together enough to make anything happen…especially in an election year.

They were talking about getting rid of this MID like 9 years ago I think and it got nowhere.

They can’t even figure out the internet tax issue for the whole US.

It’s just to make it look like they are trying to work I feel and “doing something” to justify their jobs.

[joec]

[quote=CA renter][quote=all]Paying taxes on any interest seems kind of unfair to me.[/quote]

You’re not paying taxes on interest. You’re paying taxes on whatever income you have, and interest is one expense that can be deducted.

Personally, I have a much bigger problem with corporations being able to deduct all of their expenses before paying taxes, while Joe Sixpack isn’t able to do so himself. The standard deduction doesn’t come anywhere close to the cost of very basic living expenses. If corporations can deduct ongoing expenses, middle and working-class individuals should be able to deduct expenses for a basic standard of living.[/quote]

I agree with this as well…Businesses get taxed after every single expense they pay, Joe Sixpack can’t deduct a thing…

Medical expenses? It has to be more than 10% now? Are you f*cking kidding me?

At the end of the day, someone has to pay and the government realizes it’s easier to rip off the “middle-class” w-2 wage earner and Joey Sixpack than to challenge a corporation which has massive resources to work with and who contributes to their campaign.

I’ve had friends who were accountants at companies who’s sole job was to find tax loopholes to use…

This is why I’m now favoring a 0% corporate tax now since large businesses will find a way around it anyways…They already have it all offshore at 0% places and anything over 0 will prevent the money from coming back to these shores. Even if that means giving it to shareholders.

They should just raise the dividend investment tax IMO to tax the same as income…That affects the wealthy far more, is passive income and is more fair compared to taxing W-2 secretaries, etc…

This is how extremely wealthy people like Bill Gates, Buffett has like a 10% effective tax rate since so much of their income is capital gains or dividends.

[joec]

Thanks for posting these adapters…I’ll have to buy some myself since the GU24s are so much more expensive.

[joec]

[quote=flu]….So a few years back, as part of an energy conservation program, I exchanged some traditional lamps I had with new “energy efficient” lamps…

The newer lamps don’t use the traditional E26 screw in socket for lightbulbs…..

…. but instead use the new GU24 socket with the two prong….

And that’s the problem…

1. Despite what folks say about CFL, they don’t nearly last as long as folks advertise them say they do. I’ve been getting maybe 1 to 1.5 year out of them before they break (usually the ballast stops working)…

2. While you can find CFL’s with the e26 bulb screw for traditional lamps relatively cheap at $1 each or sometimes even cheaper than that….A CFL with the GU24 base costs anywhere from $4 each to $8!!!! What a big scam….

3. Even ignoring the big scam price difference for CFL with a GU24 base….Disposing CFL’s is a PITA because they have mercury in them and should be properly recycled. Replacing them every 1.5 years to 2 to me doesn’t seem very green to me…..so…..

I’m considering going with LED’s…I see a bunch of newer “bulbs” that uses LED instead, which probably will last longer, and more energy efficient (albeit considerably more expensive…..)…BUT….

The LED lightbulbs sold at stores use the E26 lightbulb fitting, not the GU24!!!…..

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-SlimStyle-60W-Equivalent-Soft-White-2700K-A19-LED-Light-Bulb-4-Pack-433227/204780591?N=bm79Z5yc1v

…So now I’m stuck buying a bunch of GU24->E26 adapters to convert my “green” lamps back into a “not-so-green” lamps, so I can use a “greener” LED light bulb” that’s made to work only on “not-so-green” lamps…

http://www.bulborama.com/GU24-TO-MEDIUM-E26-SOCKET-ADAPTER-INDUSTRIAL-GRADE-p1762.html?AdID=13880cm00cm0N00559

Great…[/quote]

It’s funny that it says it’s not allowed to be sold in nearly every state:

PRODUCT SOLD : Online Only
Item cannot be shipped to the following state(s): AK,AL,AR,AZ,CA,CO,CT,DC,DE,FL,GA,GU,HI,IA,ID
,IL,IN,KS,KY,LA,MA,MD,ME,MI,MN,MO,MS,MT,NC,ND
,NE,NH,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OK,OR,PA,PR,RI,SC,SD,TN
,TX,UT,VA,VI,VT,WI,WV,WY

If someone has more info on where to get all types of CFLs or LED bulbs, please post. Some of the ones I bought to replace the stock ones don’t seem to work as well.

I have a ton of bulbs I need to figure out what to do with and yeah, they last no where near as long as advertised which like you, has prompted me to consider LED as well which maybe 2x-3x as expensive, but maybe worth it for the lack of hassles.

In regards to recycle, Home Depot will typically take it I think.

[joec]

[quote=flu]Need to do some research on ERUS holdings to figure out what sort of impact sanctions will have, if any….

Just in case US/EU decides to impose stricter sanctions besides freezing the assets of another important russia figure… like Putin’s dog or chia pet…

Top 10 Holdings (75.49% of Total Assets)

OAO Gazprom FDGAZP 20.11
LUKOIL CO LUKOF 11.30
Sberbank Of Russia SBER 11.26
MMC Norilsk Nickel JSC GMKN 5.79
NOVATEK JT STK NOVKY 4.87
OAO Tatneft TATN 4.77
OJSC Rosneft Oil Company ROSN 4.70
OJSC Magnit GDR MGNT 4.50
JSC Uralkali URKA 4.13
JSC VTB Bank VTBR 4.06[/quote]

On Bloomberg today, someone was saying they were still against Russia saying that even without this Crimea issue, Russian stocks were trading at like 4x or something before any of this happened so there are a lot of other issues out there for Russia.

No idea honestly…stocks are still near all time highs for a lot of companies…waiting to nibble.

[joec]

[quote=CA renter]
If they leave, others will take their place. In a high-demand state like California, this isn’t a real threat.

And other states will have other taxes or fewer/lower-quality services, instead. Every state has its pros and cons; people just have to decide what’s right for themselves. You can’t get something for nothing, no matter how hard you try.[/quote]

I disagree with this completely. A company like Twitter is in San Francisco because they (San Francisco) gave/”was Forced” to give them a huge tax break to build and have their HQ there.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/2/13/san-francisco-cityworkersprotesttwittertaxbreak.html

Doesn’t benefit the “other” poor people neither.

If another state offers them that tax break, you can say a lot of businesses will move…

A quick google found these quick links in a second…There are tons more offering employers to move their HQ to lower tax cost areas:

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/23/tony-stark-come-home-hollywood-seeks-tax-breaks-lure-movies/

http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2014/02/22/tax-break-helps-nyc-lure-the-tonight-show-home-tax-break-helps-new-york-city-lure-the-tonight-show-home/l642mOuPLywtsi3kmu5bGP/story.html

Sure, you will always have a guy selling food or haircuts in california, but higher paying jobs will leave if you make it a more inhospitable business climate.

That, and housing is already so expensive in the state that companies aren’t against moving as much to improve the overall quality of life for their employees.

[joec]

Another thing to consider is the powers with money (corporations or large property owners), now see another reason to ditch and leave California and their businesses here. It’s certainly a benefit if you’re looking to own property in CA or buy/lease back buildings.

If demand drops, people will just setup in Nevada or Arizona and that hurts CA taxes again. Businesses already feel CA is one of the worst places to run a business.

Of course, other states reassess property yearly and tax it, but just more reasons for someone to leave and take all the jobs with them.

[joec]

I honestly don’t think it will be repealed anytime soon…The reason being is that if you believe politicians care more about their own jobs and livelihood and they will sell their 1st born down the river if it will enrich their situation, doing this isn’t very popular among the voting public and gets the legislature very little.

If they did this, they would be voted out of office with the new candidate running to put this back in place…

Yes, economists all harp about how it’s not good, it skews the market, etc etc etc, but at the end of the day, people do what’s in their own best interests and self preservation.

I have read some proposals where they will simply up the standard deduction to say 25-30k so pretty much everyone who takes the mortgage deduction would get more with that new plan. This also solves the issue of really poor people not paying any tax as well and this may work, but obviously, they are going to have to take the money from somewhere else and that’s where you’ll see another fight and lobbyist.

I recommend having your hands and money in everything and based on tax laws, just play along and minimize tax every year based on who’s in govment and the “current” tax policy…

[joec]

[quote=cvmom]My sibling living in rural US has bought 20-ish super-cheap rental properties. Therefore, with depreciation, has approximately zero taxable income. Lives in 4000+ sq ft mansion with mountain views. Drives nice car, etc. Only one parent working. While their kids qualify for free lunch, scholarships, etc.

I on the other hand live in SD in two-income household. Work like crazy in order to live in our 1300 sq ft. Kids will not qualify for Questbridge (scholarship program for Ivies)…but at least we can sleep at night.

Paying our fair share of taxes feels like the right thing to do. And after living in Europe, having less than 30% effective federal+state tax rate feels downright luxurious. There we paid nearly 50% (of course health care was included.)[/quote]

This is probably because your sibling does real estate / property management as his business so all income gets deducted with his expenses before he gets taxed…Again, the tax code is against w-2 wage earners. This is why many people don’t get rich worker and people start to realize this as they get higher up on the income scale to notice some 10-20% raise didn’t seem to do much in take home pay…

Not to mention benefits such as setting up a private defined benefit plan (pension) allowing your sibling to shelter literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in retirement benefits as well. Even without that, a self employed person can do 51k now it looks like:
http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-SEPs-Contributions

Think about someone who is asset rich and say two spouses can put aside 102k in retirement income a year so if they just “paid” themselves a salary of 51k a year, their taxable income is now 0…Unfortunately, there’s still FICA, but that’s still lower if they can manage to afford that.

Overall, just more options to minimize your tax each year.

UCGal, definitely keep your tax rate at 15% for any conversions since 25% is such a big jump (and add in near 10% state as well)…

I’m a big advocate of actually deferring any taxable income to future years. Of course, this is biased since I took time off work (0 income, got laid off, etc…) so had years where income is low to do roth ira conversions, etc…

[joec]

The fact of the matter I feel is that a lot of people actually don’t like asians taking up all the UC slots, buying up all the houses, moving into “MY” area, vacationing and being rude/loud/obnoxious/etc, and simply don’t want more of these types of people around.

It’s just natural human nature IMO to be around people similar/like you. Everyone’s a little racist as much as we’d like to think we aren’t (I claim that I am however)…

At the end, if the law won’t hurt you, some people would just say, what’s the big deal? People are selfish like that even though it may not be right…

However, once it hurts their situation, they’ll then scream bloody murder and say how unfair it is.

Glad this is gone for now…If the black/hispanic person wants to get into the top UC, maybe instead of studying, they spent their time playing sports. Use that or any other things they were spending on Kumon math and playing the Piano/Violin to round out their application compared to the 2000 other asian guy/girl who got 2300 on his/her SATs. The system already does that.

Also, when I checked this Sunday Union Tribune paper, why is ALL the starting SDSU basketball players black? That’s just not fair and we need to have at least some hispanic/asians/WHITIES in there too. How badly can it hurt? Just 1 other race person (20%) and we all know the san diego area isn’t 100% black…

Let’s vote for affirmative action and use race for athletics as well so my son has a chance to play college bball and my daughter can star in the swim team.

You see how stupid this starts to become now?

[Author]

Posts