Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantNo I am not barking up any wrong tree.
Bankruptcy laws should apply here. The minute you start exonerating certain parties then the entire system is tainted.
It doesn’t matter how big the framework is. If the framework is f-d up, then it needs to be fixed. It should not matter if that framework is private or public.
Participant+1 flu.
Participant“When you say “all creditors,” you’re referring to bondholders, too, right? After all, if labor is supposed to take a haircut, then capital should take a haircut as well.”
Of course!
As you know, there is generally a priority to any and all parties. So when there is a default and a liquidation occurs the established priority of ALL creditors shall be followed and the obligations shall be dealt with in that priority.
Unless of course, you want to change the laws to accommodate your argument. Sorry this is not Venezuela.
ParticipantWhat about all of those delegates?
ParticipantCould not agree more Paramount. The ONLY way to get leverage and renegotiate with ALL CREDITORS including organized labor (public and private) is through bankruptcy.
This is what the city of San Diego should have done and it is definitely what California should do.
This problem is not going to go away.
Guess what, if the state raises 16B in revenue then it will spend 32B shortly after.
ParticipantThe annual cost for an S Corp is 800. It may be 800 for an LLC but I do not know since I have never had an LLC.
Participantpipecleaner
ParticipantThe benefits of owning a property in an LLC are two-fold. The first and primary reason is liability protection. The second is for financial reasons. As an individual you are subject to limitations on rental losses. However if you start a business and then form an LLC you will have tax advantages. However this is much more work and will cost alot more money as well.
Also as you acquire properties you have the age old question of an LLC per property which is much better liability wise, and of course much more money out of pocket. Having several rentals but packing them all into a single LLC whittles away the liability protection.
Another alternative is to pump up the insurance coverage as much as possible.
The state you own the property in will dictate what sort of information should be in the lease. In California I use the lease produced by CAR. I don’t use an attorney to draw up my leases.
May 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM in reply to: More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble #743570ParticipantI showed a firefighter friend of mine bgs ridiculous post about govt workers and he laughed so hard he almost fell over. He was wondering when the last time you actually worked was.
So lets see… should I trust a current govt worker about the way things really are right now or someone who is an internet poster….
pretty easy decision.
ParticipantYes I was refering to that.
At the beginning of the year I posted that this year we would a variety of measures that would continue to manipulate real estate prices via inventory reduction. This is just another one of them.
Shadow inventory formal definitions vary in the eye of the beholder. Some would consider this home shadow inventory, I would not. Other examples would be homeowners in default. Others would be homeowners not in default but upside down. It all varies.
The bottom line is that programs like this will indeed help achieve the goal of removing inventory. Note that I don’t agree with this but this is reality. Better to face it and understand it then deny that all of these programs together are making a difference.
By the way, the participants in all these programs are taken care of…us taxpayers are making sure of that.
ParticipantYou are correct AN. The home is not shadow inventory. No difference between a bank owning the rental or an individual being the owner. There have been several announcements about distressed inventory rental programs.
May 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM in reply to: More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble #743527ParticipantIt is absolutely hilarious.
On the one hand you will argue that it is a shame that people would have to move out of san diego to find affordable housing. That they should not have to.
Yet your argument for pensions is that people who do not work in the public sector should not get them. That the solution is for us chumps in the private sector to quit and get a public sector job.
You love to argue how in favor of the workers, that the working class should receive all corporate profits but you are plenty satisfied with the differences in how the private and public working class employees are treated.
In your utopia shouldn’t all working class employees receive the exact same treatment?
Why shouldn’t they get the exact same benefit?
May 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM in reply to: More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble #743494Participant“The solution is trivial: Convert to individual 401K retirement accounts – like everybody else has – and the pension problems go away.”
What? That sounds way to complex to me.
May 9, 2012 at 7:23 AM in reply to: More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble #743341ParticipantTrying to convince me that my social security benefit is in any manner comparable to a public pension is laughable.
I would gladly give more to the system to receive the pensions that those in the public sector receive.
GLADLY!!!
-
AuthorPosts
