Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
However having a law that is not enforced just seems lame to me. If we don’t want to enforce immigration then don’t enforce it at all… Having some sort of bizarre selective enforcement is a joke.[/quote]I don’t disagree with this. But the fact is, every law enforcement agency across the country has to allocate resources. Those resources are directed at what the powers that be decide are the most pressing issues. Enforcement of other laws are either minimal or in some cases dismissed entirely. Immigration is no different.
Nothing in this ruling prohibits AZ from enforcing existing federal laws, to the same extent that federal agencies are allowed to enforce them. And with some very minor exceptions, there is little evidence that federal laws aren’t being enforced.
Participant[quote=deadzone]How about some evidence that AZ police intentionally are out to abuse “brown people”?[/quote]
The DOJ said so.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Once again…
Why should we have a citizenship law that is not enforced?
Why even HAVE the law then?
This is not an Obama problem, it did not start with him. However the portion of the law that SCOTUS upheld was upheld because the feds argued that it PREVENTED them from enforcement of proper processing of illegal aliens… but they didn’t enforce the law from the beginning. Even SCOTUS could not believe that argument from the feds and thus upheld that portion of the AZ argument.
It really is comical…[/quote]
Not exactly. No claim was made that the law prevents enforcement by federal agencies. Only that the laws exceed the authority of federal law. The court ruled that Section 2, which was tentatively allowed to stand, is potentially constitutional, [essentially] dependent on how it is enforced.
Participant[quote=deadzone]That is a bullshit assumption, show me some proof of that? AZ has a very large “brown” population, you are naive to belive that the police force does not include many “brown” people too.[/quote]
I’m reasonably sure no claim was made that arizona police forces don’t include many brown people.
Participant[quote=deadzone] You are assuming the [AZ]policeman are either intentially out to abuse “brown skin people” or simply have no common sense. [/quote]
There is overwhelming evidence that the former is true. In parts of the state it is all but agency policy.
Participant[quote=flu]What is there to do in Arizona anyway? Serious question.[/quote]
I’ve been living here (scottsdale) for a year now. And I haven’t been to the outlying areas since i got here (Sedona, Prescott, Flagstaff). Outside of when it’s hot (like now), it’s a lot like SD without the coast. Which for me, is a lot like going out for a steak dinner at a vegetarian restaurant. The weather for 8 months is pretty much the same as there. It’s way less expensive. But I can’t figure out wtf people see about this place to make it a vacation destination.
That said, its a pretty livable city. Good restaurants. Easy to learn your way around. Gotta get used to the summer weather, much like winter weather in the east. Except i can go out to pick up my morning paper (if i got one) in my boxers instead of 4 layers of clothing. It’s 9:00 AM and 96. Will hit 110 by 4:00 this afternoon. But much like my oven, its dry heat.
Participant[quote=spdrun]That’s what I meant: that the debt is deductible even if it’s greater than $100k. In some other cases, a $100k limit applies.[/quote]
my mistake, you were exactly right. i missed the >
Participant[quote=spdrun]^^^
Not necessarily — if you own it free and clear, draw from a HELOC on the property, and use those funds to buy an income-producing investment property, the amount of that debt can be deductible > $100k.[/quote]
Actually, if you borrow it and use all of the proceeds to buy investment property, all of the interest can be deducted as investment interest, irrespective of the amount and the security for the loan.
Participant[quote=streak]
Thanks SK. I am still not sure I understand. We have no debt currently but wish to take out a mortgage on the property we currently own. Is this the debt you are referring to and if so we need to record this mortgage/debt with 90 days of the close of escrow?[/quote]Exactly, otherwise only the interest on $100K is deductible as mortgage interest.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]Debt incurred within 90 days of acquisistion of a personal residence can be considered qualified home mortgage debt if it meets all the other requirements. There is no “registration”. Borrow the money, and get the security interest recorded within 90 days of the purchase and you’re good to go.[/quote]
SK – I have a question…Is it only qualified home mortgage debt if you finance within the first 3 months? What about people who are serial refinancers (cough cough FLU cough cough xboxboy cough.)
Lets say someone starts out with a home purchased for 100k, financed for 80k. Appreciation happens and this person refinances w/ cash out – at 300k… rinse and repeat…. They can still deduct the mortgage interest…?
But another person scrapes together 100k in cash – lets say borrowing from their 401k, or family – to make their all-cash offer sweet enough to beat out other buyers. We all hear about how cash offers are king. They get the house – but don’t finance it till 120 days (more than the 90 days)… At that point they take out an 80k loan. Isn’t their mortgage just as deductable?The first person extracted money from the house – more than the original purchase price. Yet the interest is still deductable. The second person did not extract the money – just paid back the nice folks who lent them money to make a cash offer.
Does the IRS really look at this 90 day thing?[/quote]
Last question first. I have no idea whether the IRS ever looks at it. I’m pretty sure they have no automated mechanism in place to verify it. Lenders are required to file form 1098 for most all secured debt, I don’t think there’s any differentiation between purchase money or other debt.
Beyond that, only purchase money debt qualifies which includes original purchase, debt incurred for substantial improvements, and refinancing that existing debt. Debt that results in cash out doesn’t qualify.
Interest on an additional $100K in debt is also deductible. So if you pay cash, and then finance more than 90 days later, only the interest on the $100K is deductible as home mortgage interest.
That’s the general rules.
ParticipantDebt incurred within 90 days of acquisistion of a personal residence can be considered qualified home mortgage debt if it meets all the other requirements. There is no “registration”. Borrow the money, and get the security interest recorded within 90 days of the purchase and you’re good to go.
Participant[quote=moneymaker] Come to think about it, I guess you could do that with anything,surprised I haven’t seen somebody giving their significant other away on craigslist.[/quote]
Make me an offer.
June 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #746099Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
The attack on govt workers/unions is NOT about saving taxpayers/consumers money, and private sector workers will NOT benefit in any way from the destruction of public sector unions. [/quote]No, it’s not about saving taxpayers money. It’s about winning elections. The SEIU and public labor unions are among the most powerful political tools that the Democrats have. The origin of the anti-public labor movement has its roots in conservative organizations that have a primary goal of getting Republicans elected. Destruction of those public and private labor unions is a tool in reaching that goal. Fewer union members, fewer unions, fewer dollars and voters to the Dems. It isn’t any more complicated than that.[/quote]
That analysis of the situation is oversimplified and refuted by very basic facts.
What about the Democratic mayors of San Jose and San Diego? What about the Democratic governor of CA?
Heck, there’s even me. In general, I’m one of the harshest critics of Republicans on this site. But this issue is different.
How about this guy?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2117244,00.html
The system as it is evolving is highly regressive. Current workers will have their salaries cut, their numbers thinned and their benefits slashed, all to maintain relatively comfortable benefits for retirees, who are on average richer than the people who are being asked to make these sacrifices. Current residents will watch their services dwindle, so that retirees–again, who are richer on average than they are–can have guaranteed generous cost-of-living increases year after year.
In other words, it’s the old-guard vs. everyone else.
The last sentence of this says it quite well:
Public-sector unions are strong supporters of the Democratic Party, so their clout has drowned out the voices of the poor, the young, students and average citizens. That is why real credit for courage should go to those few Democrats who are taking on these issues, even at the cost of losing support from one of their key constituencies. That includes mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Reed as well as governors like Andrew Cuomo and Pat Quinn. Sadly, they are too few and too isolated. Democrats should take note: the ideals of liberalism are now being sacrificed for the interest groups of liberals.
Zakaria is certainly not a right-wing pundit.
This issue is not about left-right politics. It’s about basic arithmetic and common fairness.[/quote]
I said the origins. Not what the anti-public union movement has evolved into. Just a coincidence that it started with almost identical bills in multiple states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Maine….)? No, it’s not a coincidence. These bills originated with and organization called ALEC, a big business anti-labor sponsored organization. It was anything but grass roots. It was well planned, well funded, and well executed. At it’s origins, it had nothing to do with saving states money, only with bigger profits for big business.
June 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #746094Participant[quote=CA renter]
The attack on govt workers/unions is NOT about saving taxpayers/consumers money, and private sector workers will NOT benefit in any way from the destruction of public sector unions. [/quote]No, it’s not about saving taxpayers money. It’s about winning elections. The SEIU and public labor unions are among the most powerful political tools that the Democrats have. The origin of the anti-public labor movement has its roots in conservative organizations that have a primary goal of getting Republicans elected. Destruction of those public and private labor unions is a tool in reaching that goal. Fewer union members, fewer unions, fewer dollars and voters to the Dems. It isn’t any more complicated than that.
-
AuthorPosts
