Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ocrenter
Participant[quote=EconProf]. If he had not corrected his assessment in line with a falling market, he would be stupid. I don’t want a stupid guy as president.[/quote]
That’s what I’m saying. His astute economic sense is suppose to be his strength. This is suppose to be the reason in picking him. And he just bought something that lost 50% value within a year. Not very astute IMHO.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=ocrenter]I thought we were suppose to vote for him because he’s got good money sense. But here he is buying at peak pricing…and fully admitting he bought something that lost value by 50% after a year…[/quote]
He has so much money he doesn’t care.[/quote]
So then why spend the lawyer fee to fight the county assessor for $100k when he doesn’t care about a $6 million dollar loss? That’s 240 years of extra property tax.
Why would a man care about $25k in property tax saving yearly when he doesn’t care about $6 million.
Am I just not thinking like a rich person?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=poorgradstudent]Meh?
I’m no fan of Romney, but none of this strikes me as that outrageous. Property values fell from 2009 to 2010. As noted, a lot of people had their property taxes reassessed. This isn’t like having $21m in your IRA… having their property taxes reassessed is both within the spirit and letter of the law.[/quote]Yeah, but we’re in one of the nastiest election cycles in years and everything is now grist for the mill, especially if it smacks of elitism or classism.
To the average Joe/Jane, who does not own real estate in La Jolla, this can be spun to make it appear that the Romneys are “getting away with something” or “pulling a fast one”. It may be well within both the spirit and the letter of the law, but it’s now all about the spin that can be put on it.[/quote]
This election is quite nasty alright. The UT editorial board’s is in full nasty right wing propaganda mode, it is essentially FOX News in print these days.
ParticipantI thought we were suppose to vote for him because he’s got good money sense. But here he is buying at peak pricing…and fully admitting he bought something that lost value by 50% after a year…
ParticipantAnother interesting observation I’ve made before. At least when it comes to SD, Toll’s timing of the market was spot on, no purchase of any lots during the peak, came in and bought up a bunch of lots in premium neighborhoods with steep discount after the bust. Nicely played!
Did they just get lucky in SD? Or are they consistent with this nationwide?
Participant[quote=outtamojo]While we are on builders, where does Davidson rank?[/quote]
Davidson homes are excellent, lots of attention to details. Head to head vs Toll Bro? Not sure.
Participant[quote=Navydoc]So where’s the evidence you have that shows their execution is faulty? From what I’ve seen so far of the finished work it looks quite good to me. Compared to the Maryland home, which had numerous gaps around switchplates and outlets, the Toll attention to detail appears far superior. I’m quite happy with the purchase, and can’t wait to move in.
I have a feeling we’re going to wait quite a long time for this “evidence”, and will endure multiple straw men in the meantime.[/quote]
The guy has no evidence. I doubt he has ever step into a Toll built home. Like he said, to him all builders are the same.
The more notorious builders by reputation appear to be Cornerstone, KHOV, and KB. As we have seen, lots of complaints about Cornerstones Montoro in Stonebridge. But apparently there’s been issues with the higher end product, Tiburon, as well.
As it turns out, Cornerstone is still trying to complete the roughly 20 homesites of Montoro even after 3 and a half years and lower prices. Meanwhile Toll has already sold over 20 homes within the last 6 months despite a higher price point.
All builders are the same? Absolutely pathetic.
ParticipantIn regard to LA vs SD, completely agree with FLU.
My lastest purchase, a used 2011 MB GLK, purchased for $28k from an LA dealership. The exact car in SD started at $32k.
We also negotiated the deal prior to the drive up by phone.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Can’t argue taste (in friends or houses), so I won’t try.[/quote]
I would be interested in regard to evidence that you based your comment on. Not arguing at all. I personally do not know Bob Toll, nor do I own or ever owned a Toll home, nor do I have friends that own Toll homes. They do have a good reputation, just curious about evidence to the contrary.
Participantso who should bear the risk of the market? assuming a 6 month period for the home construction. if the buyer can not qualify 6 month after signing, the builder is stuck with an empty spec home. the builder lost 6 month of opportunity to find another buyer for the home. in addition, with the example of the guy that lost his $100k deposit on a home that was $2.2 mil but was worth $1.4 mil when the home was completed, seem to me the $100k loss was a much better outcome vs being underwater by $800k.
Participant[quote=AN]Every car is different. It might make sense to buy a Prius new, but a M5 would be an opposite example. Brand new, they’re going for >$100k. 3-4 years old CPO goes for $40-60k. That’s >$40k depreciation in 3 years. If you can get it for ~$40k, there’s no way you’ll lose >$40k on the car in the next 3 years.[/quote]
Agree, toyota and Lexus barely depreciate, not worth it to buy used. Euro luxury brands depreciate like mad the first 3-4 years
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=desmond]once they rolled out the hospital beds and started talking how proud the Brits are of their healthcare I turned to a rerun of the Shawshank Red.[/quote]
I thought that it was a very appropriate statement on the history of modern Britain. It’s a statement of universal values that’s especially relevant in 2012.
Britain is a monarchy, run by a conservative government. Mitt Romney who developed Romney Care is a guest in Britain. America is the only major country without universal health care.
I think that the artistic license on the part of Danny Boyle was very appropriate.[/quote]
They should have done the same in Beijing! They’ll have patients handing red pouches to the doctors before the operation and the poor can bleed out on the street, would have been much more entertaining than what we saw yesterday.
For the American version they can have a 100 year old guy getting dialysis, with 5 specialists surrounding him while big chested drug reps offer up the latest medications, topped with shipping off of his head for cryogenic storage after death.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Actually, I think foreign intervention in China, Vietnam, Cambodia is what brought on revolution. Without the destabilizing factors of foreign intervention, there would have been more continuity.
Russia was a different. The aristocracy could have reformed; but they even opposed reform attempts by the Emperor.[/quote]
At least for China, most dynasties had the same life cycle. At first the emperor have the popular support, then gradually as corruption sets in, a small group of the population become more and more powerful and rich. The emporer gradually direct policies from welfare of the populace to welfare of the selected few, while the general population gradually falters. Then all it takes is a famine and general revolt sets in.
I can see th same process with America. As corporations get bigger, they also gain more voice and power within the government. Gradually, the government changes it’s focus from the populace to the corporations. As the corporations do better, the wealth of the country become more concentrated into the hands of a few.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.[/quote]I think the point here is there is that eventual breaking point when the populace would take the poison pill. Question is when is that breaking point.
Now if you have a policy of subsidized grain that makes $1 burgers possible for all, I suppose that that breaking point may never come.
-
AuthorPosts