Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
livinincali
ParticipantProperty line disputes can be the worst. I remember the was some psycho lady in the neighborhood where I was growing up and she had this property line grudge against one of the neighbors and made their life hell. At some point they just gave up and let her have the 5 extra feet she was claiming. It wasn’t worth the property damage and police visits.
Invest in a home security system with cameras installed facing this property line and try to work out some kind of deal with these neighbors. Of course with what they’ve done so far it doesn’t look good for you.
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]Mish talks about the subject a lot and is very negative on this idea citing that many, many predictions have turned out false and states the reason why.
Check out his site.
CE[/quote]
Well this post was originally created in 2011. 3 years later and there’s still no hyper inflation and likely won’t be. Maybe hyperinflation in San Deigo home prices over the past year?
Participant[quote=patb]it’s littered with pending litigation.
My take is the title insurance should cover that and the estate is in
administration under a court, so if we get court approval to the sales price,
that should constitute some judicial cover, but, i’m real real uneasy
with them using my earnest money,i’d rather put money down, carry a note back from the estate and
then clear them once i get more long term finance.[/quote]It might be tough to get title insurance if there’s pending litigation issues. It’s kind of like trying to buy home owners insurance and announcing you plan to set fire to the house.
There’s always the saying no risk, no reward but this is starting to look like if it’s too good to be true it’s probably not true. You probably aren’t the lucky one that’s going to get a $480K house for $300K.
Participant[quote=AN]Why do you have to replace experienced teachers w/ new teachers? Why can’t you replace them with other experienced teachers?
[/quote]Because of the way the teacher pension system works. If you have an ounce of a brain in you head there’s no way you’re going to give up the potential pension once you’ve made it 5-10 years into the system. You’re way to vested at that point. If they had 401Ks that were their money and could go with them you’d probably see more teachers moving around. Some goods ones would probably leave to the private sector but I’d rather have a new enthusiastic teacher than one that realizes they don’t really want to do this anymore.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
How much lobbying does the privatization movement do? I can assure you it is spending far more money that teachers’ unions.
[/quote]Not sure about lobbying but prop 30 in 2012 (the sales tax increase for school funding) had 67.1 in yes funding and 53.4 million in no funding with most of that no funding coming from Charles Munger and a fair amount of yes funding from labor groups and surprisingly corporate interests. You can see the detail here. http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)
Munger’s sister (Molly Munger) was behind the competing proposition 38 that failed in that election.
ParticipantYou can look at the CANN chart if you want to know what to expect when this stock opens back. PHOT will probably open around 0.10-0.20 and then rally fairly well, but you never know. People playing momo hot money stocks hate having their money tied up.
Participant[quote=flu]
3. I’ve been holding onto Corning, though it hasn’t really gone up that much. Mainly because of gorilla glass.[/quote]Did you buy the right corning stock?
GLW is up close to 20% since the first of the year. Up close to 50% YoY <-Makers of Gorilla Glass OC is up marginally <-makes fiber glass.ParticipantI’m glad I don’t live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?
Participant[quote=CA renter]
So, even if you do see an increase in benefit costs, that is far more likely the result of:1. new teachers, and
2. increased contribution amounts that have been offset, to one extent or another, by wage cuts and benefit reductions/increased contributions on the part of the employees.[/quote]
Just look at the budget that I linked CAR. It’s not because of new teachers. Look at page 36 of the budget. Right there it tells you that there were 5589 teaching staff in 2007-2008 and now there’s 5020.
If I do the math it looks like this.
2007/2008 Total money in compensation 579 million certified + 244.5 classified + 276 million benefits for a total of 1.1 billion / 15,042 total staff = 73140 average salary and benefits.
2011/2012 Total money in compensation 516 + 218 + 311 = 1.05 billion / 12848 total staff = 81474 average salary and benefits. That is an increase of 11.4% over 4 years or just about 2.8% compounded.
So individually SD Unified staff that has managed to keep their jobs have been getting average increases of 2.8% per year in total compensation with a flat budget.
The benefits are unseen compensation but it’s real money for the taxpayers funding education.
Also just suppose for a minute that they froze avg salary and benefits at the 73400 2007/2008 level. How many employees could they have saved with the smaller budget. 1.05 / 73400 = 14312 – 12848 = 1463 employees and at a minimum the 500+ teachers they decided to layoff. They didn’t so it sort of proves to me that the bias is to ensure total compensation continues to go up at a rate greater than inflation and GDP.
April 8, 2014 at 8:29 AM in reply to: Advice sought on renting out old house versus selling and taking the money #772625Participant350,000*0.01125 = 3937.5/yr in taxes. Lets just say $4000 although it might be a bit higher than that. On the property management cost you usually assume 8-10% but for $3K a month maybe you get a discount. Let’s just say $200/mo or $2400/yr. Vacancy/Maintenance tough to judge when you only have 1 property, but let’s just assume 1 month of rent per year.
So 36000-4000-2400-3000 = $26,600/yr. Cap Rate tends to be based on the value of the house but let’s calculate it both ways. For you the cap rate is 26,600/650,000 = 4.1%. For an investor it goes down a bunch because of the increase in the tax base. So a new investor that bought your property would have property taxes of nearly $8K a year putting the revenue down to 22,600. SO 22,600/700,000 = 3.2% Cap Rate. So there’s no investor demand for your house. Your potential buyer pool is limited to owner users. An owner user that bought at $700K and put 20% down is looking at a monthly nut of about $3500/mo which isn’t that much more than renting.
The problem you potentially face is that if/when interest rates go up and there’s other investments that look more attractive the costs for potential buyers are going to go up at the same time. I.e. when you can get a safe 4% return at a bank the mortgage rates will be close to 7% which makes the monthly nut close to $4500. In order to keep the monthly nut close to the $3500 @ 7% interest the home’s price would need to be around $500K rather than $700K.
If you’re betting or guessing that rates should rise in the near future than it would make sense to sell now. If you bet that rates will stay low for a long time than it’s better to keep the property and rent it out. If you use Japan as a guide than it’s probably better to hang on to it.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=livinincali]Here is the latest SDUSD complete budget I could find.
On page 9 they say total enrollment including charter school in 131,541. It also says non charter enrollment is 117,249.
On page 35 you can see the breakdown of expenses excluding charters so it’s probably more accurate to compare expenses to 117K students.
The 3 major ones being.
Certified Salaries 516 million
Classified Salaries 218 million
Employee Benefits 311 million <- This is the invisible killer. Employees don't see it on their paycheck as an amount but it's increased from 276 million in 2007-2008 even with fewer staff. Everything else has decreased. Total expenditures on page 38 are 1.11 billion. So it seems pretty accurate to say 1,111,000,000/117,000 ~ 10K spending per kid. On page 36 you can see the number of positions by type. Basically 5000 classroom teachers and then about another 2500 employees related to special education. That is only 7500 of a total staff of 12,848. So there's quite of bit of not in the classroom staff in the budget.[/quote] Sorry, after so many pages on this thread I'm not really sure which post you're referring to here. This is the only one I could find where I asked you for proof of your assertion that 2% of any increased funds goes toward new teachers, supplies, infrastructure, etc. Also, I can't see where half of the new money is going toward raises, much less 10% raises! Can you please link to the data showing where teachers have been getting raises that would consume half of the increased funding? From everything I've seen and heard, most teachers have either seen stagnant wages (declining in real terms) or nominal cuts (making the cuts even more devastating in real terms), some being quite severe, since the recession started in ~2008. [/quote] I didn't post the budget as a response to you. It was posted just so anybody that wanted to look at the number could. [quote] Is this the post you were responding to?: [quote=CA renter][quote=livinincali]The problem with giving schools more money is that it’s never used for the things they say it will be used for. Say we gave SDUSD a 10% increase in the budget. Anybody want to bet that least than half of that increase is going to give the existing teachers and administrator raises? They might use 2% of that money to hire new teachers and make a big spectacle about how they hired those new teachers but the vast majority of that money is going to the existing employees in raises. Not only that but the biggest portion is going to go to those people that have a short time left in the classroom (i.e. nearing retirement) or those already not in the classroom (Administrators). Why should we give money money to schools when we know the money isn’t going to be used to improve the education experience. The existing administrators and teachers are the ones that are failing and giving them all 10% raises isn’t going to suddenly make them better teachers or administrators.[/quote]Again…evidence, please![/quote][/quote]
I wrote Anybody want to bet? I would think most people would assume that would be a speculation on my part. A bet is an agreement on 2 differing speculations on future outcomes. You don’t usually use evidence to justify a speculation.
The problem in this case that it might be rather hard to prove the winner in this type of bet. It speculates on the amount of the increase in funding and it speculates what the district would do with that money. It also ignores the question of, are increases in benefits pretty much the same thing as an unseen raise. I can tell you through the budget number that total compensation has been going up per employee because of the increases in the benefits budget. That’s with a pretty flat budget number. Not only that but since teachers have gone without raises for quite some time I’m guessing that the union is going to hammer on the district to provide raises soon with any little increase in funding.
Do you really want to take that bet knowing everything that’s going on. I get the impression that you don’t really want to take that bet but you also want my statement to be false.
ParticipantHere is the latest SDUSD complete budget I could find.
On page 9 they say total enrollment including charter school in 131,541. It also says non charter enrollment is 117,249.
On page 35 you can see the breakdown of expenses excluding charters so it’s probably more accurate to compare expenses to 117K students.
The 3 major ones being.
Certified Salaries 516 million
Classified Salaries 218 million
Employee Benefits 311 million <- This is the invisible killer. Employees don't see it on their paycheck as an amount but it's increased from 276 million in 2007-2008 even with fewer staff. Everything else has decreased. Total expenditures on page 38 are 1.11 billion. So it seems pretty accurate to say 1,111,000,000/117,000 ~ 10K spending per kid. On page 36 you can see the number of positions by type. Basically 5000 classroom teachers and then about another 2500 employees related to special education. That is only 7500 of a total staff of 12,848. So there's quite of bit of not in the classroom staff in the budget.ParticipantIf you want proof of why socialistic systems fail, just look at public education. It’s probably one of the most socialistic institutions in the country and it continues to get poor results because they refuse analyze these policies and change them.
They refuse to look at administrative costs. They refuse to do meaningful performance evaluation. They promote kids based on feeling rather than knowing the content. They refuse to split kids up by ability and let those at the top succeed.
The successes of the Preus school should be a model for public schools. Hey maybe we should segregate the high IQ kids and give them some teachers that can allow them to succeed. Instead that is deemed unfair (The number one phrase in the socialists playbook) and so we stick all the kids in the same room and teach to the left hand side of the bell curve. Everybody on the right side of the bell curve is bored and those are the far left still aren’t getting it.
We just have to accept the fact that everybody isn’t born with the same ability. Life isn’t fair. Let’s try to get those that can really succeed ahead and those that really struggle the basic life skills they need to function in society. They need the ability to read, write and do mathematics. Put them through classes that focus on real life skills and let them skip physics, chemistry, advanced history, etc. Stuff that they don’t need to function and stuff that they can always learn by READING if they are interested in it.
ParticipantThe problem with giving schools more money is that it’s never used for the things they say it will be used for. Say we gave SDUSD a 10% increase in the budget. Anybody want to bet that least than half of that increase is going to give the existing teachers and administrator raises? They might use 2% of that money to hire new teachers and make a big spectacle about how they hired those new teachers but the vast majority of that money is going to the existing employees in raises. Not only that but the biggest portion is going to go to those people that have a short time left in the classroom (i.e. nearing retirement) or those already not in the classroom (Administrators). Why should we give money money to schools when we know the money isn’t going to be used to improve the education experience. The existing administrators and teachers are the ones that are failing and giving them all 10% raises isn’t going to suddenly make them better teachers or administrators.
-
AuthorPosts
