Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantHarvey good to see you posting again.
ParticipantParamount my response to the OP has nothing to do with Temecula. The OP could have said he lived in La Jolla and I would have posted the exact same thing.
Life has nothing to do with where you live and everything to do with how you live. If someone lives somewhere and for whatever reason they don’t like it why should they stay? It doesn’t work for him but it does work for you and a whole lot of others.
Nobody is wrong here, Temecula is a beautiful place. However for this particular poster it isn’t working out. He should sell asap and move to where he wants to live.
Seems like a no brainer to me. Any financial arguments to stay can be countered fairly easily.
Participantyes it is.
I guess it is a non issue. I wonder if it would have been had it been 3 whites beating a black.
Probably no different.
ParticipantWarning this is disturbing to watch. I guess it really is not of any importance though.
ParticipantHmmm… Several cities I have rentals in out of state have private trash collection. Seems like there is not an explosion of prices.
ParticipantAlso and someone with tax skills can correct me, but if the op was carrying cap gains losses from previous years, cant the gain from his sale offset those losses that he was carrying forward?
Agreed with you OC. To many unknown variables. I have learned by watching my kids grow up at the speed of light that time is way more important then money.
ParticipantI don’t think it is a big problem to be taxed on profits. For me having a lifestyle that is impaired for 2 years is not worth paying several thousands in taxes. I would bail, pay whatever gains you have and count yourself lucky for that. Life is to short. Also don’t forget all of your closing costs. If you made upgrades to the home you can change your cost basis. Also any of your financing fees that were amortized you get to catch all the way up. When it is all said and done, you will not have as much as a taxable event as you think you may have. So what you get taxed on it… but you live the way you want to live and you still walk away with a profit.
ParticipantSounds like there should be no private entities then because any service industry that has multiple providers is less efficient then a single entity.
Hmmm curious logic.
ParticipantPerhaps I should revise. Forecasting costs given a smaller finite set of parameters is possible. Private companies do indeed seem to do it well. Much better then the public entities. Especially when healthcare is involved.
Yes so one statement out of all the other points I made was arguable. All of the other ones do indicate that the way that it is being done now does not work and costs the taxpayers alot of money. Furthermore that the amount that is being heaped on the taxpayers could grow dramatically based on the outcome of future court cases as more municipalities fall by the wayside and look for ways to keep those pension checks rolling.
ParticipantExcept that annuity companies are not backstopped by taxpayers.
ParticipantI think there is ample evidence to show they have not been done correctly. Similarly I believe it is impossible to correctly forecast the cost of future liabilities more then a year or two in advance and then accurately predict that a given return will cover those liabilities. To compound that problem and guarantee a given return is foolish. Furthermore there is no incentive for pensions to be run correctly given that they will be bailed out by state and now even federal coffers. Why not take the higher risk for a better return? We don’t make enough to fund the liability with a less risky yield, and if we lose the money it will be covered so what the hell does it matter?
Also you may want to read up on the financial health of the SD pensions especially with respect to unfunded liabilities.
Similarly given the financial health of most large municipalities across the nation with respect to pensions and unfunded liabilities, evidence would indeed corroborate that pension costs are perpetual expenses, and unfunded liabilites have sky-rocketed. The ony strategy the municipalities have is to dump retirees off to Obamacare.
I would rather pay for the service as provided. If I don’t like the cost I will haul the crap to the dump and pay the dump fees.
ParticipantSK I think your assumption is incorrect because you are neglecting to factor in the recurring fees that stick with the taxpayers long after that city employee retires. It may be a wash for the actual cost of running the business but the long term cost to the consumer is substantially less.
So I would rather pay the private company to do the job, even if it a little bit more costly now, rather then fund the garbage man’s pension and health care for life.
ParticipantNo moral hazard for municipalities that screw up. Just make sure those pensioners get paid.
Taxpayers to the rescue!!!! Detroit here we come.
Next city up? Chicago perhaps?
ParticipantAlso still taking bets on a federal bailout. I believe the dems are gonna push for it.
-
AuthorPosts
