Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=meadandale]
…..
I also pay 100% of my own healthcare, have to fund my own retirement and if I want a vacation, I have to stop working and lose the revenue from being out of the office. I don’t get sick days or 2 weeks of paid vacation every year.You want to write off those things? Start a business…or don’t…but don’t bitch and complain about the ‘unfair’ tax breaks business owners get until you’ve been one.
[/quote]
Meadandale, you and I do different things for a living. You are a business owner, which brings some positives and some negatives. You could choose to divide everyone up into the industries they are in – financial, entertainment, manufacturing…. I am sure each has its own positives and negatives. Does that mean that people in some of those industries should pay less taxes than someone earning the same income who works in another industry? I think the burden of justifying that sort of differentiation falls squarely on the person asking for special treatment. With that perspective, I think you’d have a hard time convincing the majority that business owners need to pay less taxes on the same (real) income as non-owners. Everyone thinks they are special, so it’s best to make no one special.
Participant[quote=meadandale]
…..
I also pay 100% of my own healthcare, have to fund my own retirement and if I want a vacation, I have to stop working and lose the revenue from being out of the office. I don’t get sick days or 2 weeks of paid vacation every year.You want to write off those things? Start a business…or don’t…but don’t bitch and complain about the ‘unfair’ tax breaks business owners get until you’ve been one.
[/quote]
Meadandale, you and I do different things for a living. You are a business owner, which brings some positives and some negatives. You could choose to divide everyone up into the industries they are in – financial, entertainment, manufacturing…. I am sure each has its own positives and negatives. Does that mean that people in some of those industries should pay less taxes than someone earning the same income who works in another industry? I think the burden of justifying that sort of differentiation falls squarely on the person asking for special treatment. With that perspective, I think you’d have a hard time convincing the majority that business owners need to pay less taxes on the same (real) income as non-owners. Everyone thinks they are special, so it’s best to make no one special.
Participant[quote=meadandale]
…..
I also pay 100% of my own healthcare, have to fund my own retirement and if I want a vacation, I have to stop working and lose the revenue from being out of the office. I don’t get sick days or 2 weeks of paid vacation every year.You want to write off those things? Start a business…or don’t…but don’t bitch and complain about the ‘unfair’ tax breaks business owners get until you’ve been one.
[/quote]
Meadandale, you and I do different things for a living. You are a business owner, which brings some positives and some negatives. You could choose to divide everyone up into the industries they are in – financial, entertainment, manufacturing…. I am sure each has its own positives and negatives. Does that mean that people in some of those industries should pay less taxes than someone earning the same income who works in another industry? I think the burden of justifying that sort of differentiation falls squarely on the person asking for special treatment. With that perspective, I think you’d have a hard time convincing the majority that business owners need to pay less taxes on the same (real) income as non-owners. Everyone thinks they are special, so it’s best to make no one special.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I just went through my weekly NOD and foreclosure search. I have noticed that a lot of properties that in January had NODs but were not listed (and still not) are scheduled for foreclosure. This surprised me. But it’s in line w/3 months. So maybe – just maybe, the banks will actually foreclose and we will see them listed soon thereafter.
If this is going to be true, then look out for the February and March NODs. It may be one heck of a summer. [/quote]
jpnpb, my thanks for sharing your original and timely research with us. I, and a few of us, are guilty of mostly just bloviating here, but this is hard data that is useful.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I just went through my weekly NOD and foreclosure search. I have noticed that a lot of properties that in January had NODs but were not listed (and still not) are scheduled for foreclosure. This surprised me. But it’s in line w/3 months. So maybe – just maybe, the banks will actually foreclose and we will see them listed soon thereafter.
If this is going to be true, then look out for the February and March NODs. It may be one heck of a summer. [/quote]
jpnpb, my thanks for sharing your original and timely research with us. I, and a few of us, are guilty of mostly just bloviating here, but this is hard data that is useful.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I just went through my weekly NOD and foreclosure search. I have noticed that a lot of properties that in January had NODs but were not listed (and still not) are scheduled for foreclosure. This surprised me. But it’s in line w/3 months. So maybe – just maybe, the banks will actually foreclose and we will see them listed soon thereafter.
If this is going to be true, then look out for the February and March NODs. It may be one heck of a summer. [/quote]
jpnpb, my thanks for sharing your original and timely research with us. I, and a few of us, are guilty of mostly just bloviating here, but this is hard data that is useful.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I just went through my weekly NOD and foreclosure search. I have noticed that a lot of properties that in January had NODs but were not listed (and still not) are scheduled for foreclosure. This surprised me. But it’s in line w/3 months. So maybe – just maybe, the banks will actually foreclose and we will see them listed soon thereafter.
If this is going to be true, then look out for the February and March NODs. It may be one heck of a summer. [/quote]
jpnpb, my thanks for sharing your original and timely research with us. I, and a few of us, are guilty of mostly just bloviating here, but this is hard data that is useful.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I just went through my weekly NOD and foreclosure search. I have noticed that a lot of properties that in January had NODs but were not listed (and still not) are scheduled for foreclosure. This surprised me. But it’s in line w/3 months. So maybe – just maybe, the banks will actually foreclose and we will see them listed soon thereafter.
If this is going to be true, then look out for the February and March NODs. It may be one heck of a summer. [/quote]
jpnpb, my thanks for sharing your original and timely research with us. I, and a few of us, are guilty of mostly just bloviating here, but this is hard data that is useful.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]The banks aren’t gonna list those REOs until they are forced to. And guess what, they aren’t going to be forced to because their buddies in the government will keep shovelling OUR money THEIR way. Essentially we have a sort of Soviet system now where the government is paying for housing. Why move out or pay your mortgage when the bank won’t kick you out? Dammit if I knew then what I know now I would have:
1) Bought as many houses as possible with as many crazy loans as I could have gotten.
2) Flipped as many as I could have and used the proceeds to buy some real property in cash out of the country somewhere.
3) Stayed in the nicest, most expensive and hardest-to-sell one here in SD.
4) Stopped making payments on it in 2008.
Hell I’m sure they wouldn’t have kicked me out by now. I’d probably have a couple of more years scot-free there until the sheriff showed up. By then I would have saved a BUNDLE and I’d shuffle off to my foreign retreat.
What sickens me most is the knowledge that quite a few people have done what I just described, AND THEY’RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT with our government’s help. AAAARRRRGH!
[/quote]
That’s exactly right, CONCHO. But don’t forget that it’s all in a good cause – to save our economy. It’s for our own good.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]The banks aren’t gonna list those REOs until they are forced to. And guess what, they aren’t going to be forced to because their buddies in the government will keep shovelling OUR money THEIR way. Essentially we have a sort of Soviet system now where the government is paying for housing. Why move out or pay your mortgage when the bank won’t kick you out? Dammit if I knew then what I know now I would have:
1) Bought as many houses as possible with as many crazy loans as I could have gotten.
2) Flipped as many as I could have and used the proceeds to buy some real property in cash out of the country somewhere.
3) Stayed in the nicest, most expensive and hardest-to-sell one here in SD.
4) Stopped making payments on it in 2008.
Hell I’m sure they wouldn’t have kicked me out by now. I’d probably have a couple of more years scot-free there until the sheriff showed up. By then I would have saved a BUNDLE and I’d shuffle off to my foreign retreat.
What sickens me most is the knowledge that quite a few people have done what I just described, AND THEY’RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT with our government’s help. AAAARRRRGH!
[/quote]
That’s exactly right, CONCHO. But don’t forget that it’s all in a good cause – to save our economy. It’s for our own good.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]The banks aren’t gonna list those REOs until they are forced to. And guess what, they aren’t going to be forced to because their buddies in the government will keep shovelling OUR money THEIR way. Essentially we have a sort of Soviet system now where the government is paying for housing. Why move out or pay your mortgage when the bank won’t kick you out? Dammit if I knew then what I know now I would have:
1) Bought as many houses as possible with as many crazy loans as I could have gotten.
2) Flipped as many as I could have and used the proceeds to buy some real property in cash out of the country somewhere.
3) Stayed in the nicest, most expensive and hardest-to-sell one here in SD.
4) Stopped making payments on it in 2008.
Hell I’m sure they wouldn’t have kicked me out by now. I’d probably have a couple of more years scot-free there until the sheriff showed up. By then I would have saved a BUNDLE and I’d shuffle off to my foreign retreat.
What sickens me most is the knowledge that quite a few people have done what I just described, AND THEY’RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT with our government’s help. AAAARRRRGH!
[/quote]
That’s exactly right, CONCHO. But don’t forget that it’s all in a good cause – to save our economy. It’s for our own good.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]The banks aren’t gonna list those REOs until they are forced to. And guess what, they aren’t going to be forced to because their buddies in the government will keep shovelling OUR money THEIR way. Essentially we have a sort of Soviet system now where the government is paying for housing. Why move out or pay your mortgage when the bank won’t kick you out? Dammit if I knew then what I know now I would have:
1) Bought as many houses as possible with as many crazy loans as I could have gotten.
2) Flipped as many as I could have and used the proceeds to buy some real property in cash out of the country somewhere.
3) Stayed in the nicest, most expensive and hardest-to-sell one here in SD.
4) Stopped making payments on it in 2008.
Hell I’m sure they wouldn’t have kicked me out by now. I’d probably have a couple of more years scot-free there until the sheriff showed up. By then I would have saved a BUNDLE and I’d shuffle off to my foreign retreat.
What sickens me most is the knowledge that quite a few people have done what I just described, AND THEY’RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT with our government’s help. AAAARRRRGH!
[/quote]
That’s exactly right, CONCHO. But don’t forget that it’s all in a good cause – to save our economy. It’s for our own good.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]The banks aren’t gonna list those REOs until they are forced to. And guess what, they aren’t going to be forced to because their buddies in the government will keep shovelling OUR money THEIR way. Essentially we have a sort of Soviet system now where the government is paying for housing. Why move out or pay your mortgage when the bank won’t kick you out? Dammit if I knew then what I know now I would have:
1) Bought as many houses as possible with as many crazy loans as I could have gotten.
2) Flipped as many as I could have and used the proceeds to buy some real property in cash out of the country somewhere.
3) Stayed in the nicest, most expensive and hardest-to-sell one here in SD.
4) Stopped making payments on it in 2008.
Hell I’m sure they wouldn’t have kicked me out by now. I’d probably have a couple of more years scot-free there until the sheriff showed up. By then I would have saved a BUNDLE and I’d shuffle off to my foreign retreat.
What sickens me most is the knowledge that quite a few people have done what I just described, AND THEY’RE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT with our government’s help. AAAARRRRGH!
[/quote]
That’s exactly right, CONCHO. But don’t forget that it’s all in a good cause – to save our economy. It’s for our own good.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=nostradamus]I think our fico score and bank history go a long way to get a loan. 1099 is perfectly acceptable.[/quote]
In my case I don’t have a 1099, just sweat equity.
I could have probably set myself up much better by paying myself to build the two houses, thus increasing my cost basis against future capital gains. I could have taken advantage of my breeding years for tax deductions on that income while paying into social security.Then I would look great to lenders and they would give me tons of cheap and easy money.Bwaaaaah!My tax guy is fired.[/quote]Rus, I guess my suggestion about having 2 types of loans, one tax deductible and one non-deductible, was my way of sorta agreeing with you! It is unfortunate for an individual if paying less taxes in the past results in less ability to borrow in the future on a tax-preferred basis. But I think this outcome is fair for all of us as members of one society. We are stuck with having to live as social animals, in one nation, however much we may dislike some of the others we’re lumped in with.
I don’t know the IRS rules about how much a company controlled by an owner can declare as income from the company, but I’d be surprised if it’s just whatever amount that produces the least taxes. I’d also be surprised if the rules are observed in the spirit as well as the letter. And I’d continue to be surprised if the IRS actually enforced the rules thoroughly. So, although small business owners may have it tough in lots of other respects, I think it’s fair to say that the freedom they get to lower their taxes on a given amount of income is significantly greater than w2 wage slaves. My hats are off to people who run their own business – really – but my admiration runs out on special tax deals. We all want to pay less taxes as individuals. It becomes unfair when the easy marks pay the greatest %. / end tax rant.
-
AuthorPosts
