Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=AN]Do you think Geithner won’t engineer the same bailouts and Obama won’t approve such bailout?[/quote]
Geitner? In a heartbeat. Whether as a result of malevolence or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. (I think his history makes it pretty clear, his corruptness is exceeded only by his incompetence.) Obama, not so much. Though I see nothing on the horizon that would require any bailouts. The economy is not tanking. Growth has slowed to a trickle, but the only thing that continues to bleed is the unemployed worker. The financial bubbles burst years ago (with the exception of commodities, which slowly have receded from their mostly artificial highs). Nor are the government’s finances tanking. Hence the safety that the market migrated to was….the very asset that was recently downgraded.
Nothing happened.
Participant[quote=AN]Do you think Geithner won’t engineer the same bailouts and Obama won’t approve such bailout?[/quote]
Geitner? In a heartbeat. Whether as a result of malevolence or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. (I think his history makes it pretty clear, his corruptness is exceeded only by his incompetence.) Obama, not so much. Though I see nothing on the horizon that would require any bailouts. The economy is not tanking. Growth has slowed to a trickle, but the only thing that continues to bleed is the unemployed worker. The financial bubbles burst years ago (with the exception of commodities, which slowly have receded from their mostly artificial highs). Nor are the government’s finances tanking. Hence the safety that the market migrated to was….the very asset that was recently downgraded.
Nothing happened.
Participant[quote=AN]Do you think Geithner won’t engineer the same bailouts and Obama won’t approve such bailout?[/quote]
Geitner? In a heartbeat. Whether as a result of malevolence or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. (I think his history makes it pretty clear, his corruptness is exceeded only by his incompetence.) Obama, not so much. Though I see nothing on the horizon that would require any bailouts. The economy is not tanking. Growth has slowed to a trickle, but the only thing that continues to bleed is the unemployed worker. The financial bubbles burst years ago (with the exception of commodities, which slowly have receded from their mostly artificial highs). Nor are the government’s finances tanking. Hence the safety that the market migrated to was….the very asset that was recently downgraded.
Nothing happened.
Participant[quote=cvmom]SK–this is the most sensible thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time. If you are accepting new clients, could you please PM me your contact information?[/quote]
Thank you. But I’ve not accepted a new client since 2004, and have been succesful in getting rid of all of them except for 1 that just won’t go away :). Currently I’m a CFO for an IT consulting firm, and not even in SD anymore.
Participant[quote=cvmom]SK–this is the most sensible thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time. If you are accepting new clients, could you please PM me your contact information?[/quote]
Thank you. But I’ve not accepted a new client since 2004, and have been succesful in getting rid of all of them except for 1 that just won’t go away :). Currently I’m a CFO for an IT consulting firm, and not even in SD anymore.
Participant[quote=cvmom]SK–this is the most sensible thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time. If you are accepting new clients, could you please PM me your contact information?[/quote]
Thank you. But I’ve not accepted a new client since 2004, and have been succesful in getting rid of all of them except for 1 that just won’t go away :). Currently I’m a CFO for an IT consulting firm, and not even in SD anymore.
Participant[quote=cvmom]SK–this is the most sensible thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time. If you are accepting new clients, could you please PM me your contact information?[/quote]
Thank you. But I’ve not accepted a new client since 2004, and have been succesful in getting rid of all of them except for 1 that just won’t go away :). Currently I’m a CFO for an IT consulting firm, and not even in SD anymore.
Participant[quote=cvmom]SK–this is the most sensible thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time. If you are accepting new clients, could you please PM me your contact information?[/quote]
Thank you. But I’ve not accepted a new client since 2004, and have been succesful in getting rid of all of them except for 1 that just won’t go away :). Currently I’m a CFO for an IT consulting firm, and not even in SD anymore.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=CA renter]
I’ve often questioned the wisdom of paying a dollar in interest in order to save 30-40 cents in taxes.Am I missing something?
[/quote]The answer to your question is yes, you are missing something in that statement. You are missing the alternatives for comparison.
Obviously in a vacuum it makes no sense to pay $1 to save 30-40 cents in taxes.
It’s not as simple as comparing paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back versus not paying that dollar.
If you compare
A. paying $1 and saving 30-40cents in taxes (by having a mortgage)
to
B. paying 75 cents and saving zero in taxes (by renting)
it might make sense, depending on other deductions relative to the standard deduction.You can also compare the use of cash for other inverstments versus buying a place for cash as others have above.
Of course, I know that you know these things. It’s just that the wisdom (or lack therof) of paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back, depends on the alternatives.[/quote]
The OP was questioning whether he should pay cash, or get a mortgage. It wasn’t a rent vs. buy issue.
[/quote]
No, the original question was not cash or get a mortgage. The question was how big of a mortgage. All cash wasn’t an option. And I’m quite sure I didn’t address rent vs. buy.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=CA renter]
I’ve often questioned the wisdom of paying a dollar in interest in order to save 30-40 cents in taxes.Am I missing something?
[/quote]The answer to your question is yes, you are missing something in that statement. You are missing the alternatives for comparison.
Obviously in a vacuum it makes no sense to pay $1 to save 30-40 cents in taxes.
It’s not as simple as comparing paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back versus not paying that dollar.
If you compare
A. paying $1 and saving 30-40cents in taxes (by having a mortgage)
to
B. paying 75 cents and saving zero in taxes (by renting)
it might make sense, depending on other deductions relative to the standard deduction.You can also compare the use of cash for other inverstments versus buying a place for cash as others have above.
Of course, I know that you know these things. It’s just that the wisdom (or lack therof) of paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back, depends on the alternatives.[/quote]
The OP was questioning whether he should pay cash, or get a mortgage. It wasn’t a rent vs. buy issue.
[/quote]
No, the original question was not cash or get a mortgage. The question was how big of a mortgage. All cash wasn’t an option. And I’m quite sure I didn’t address rent vs. buy.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=CA renter]
I’ve often questioned the wisdom of paying a dollar in interest in order to save 30-40 cents in taxes.Am I missing something?
[/quote]The answer to your question is yes, you are missing something in that statement. You are missing the alternatives for comparison.
Obviously in a vacuum it makes no sense to pay $1 to save 30-40 cents in taxes.
It’s not as simple as comparing paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back versus not paying that dollar.
If you compare
A. paying $1 and saving 30-40cents in taxes (by having a mortgage)
to
B. paying 75 cents and saving zero in taxes (by renting)
it might make sense, depending on other deductions relative to the standard deduction.You can also compare the use of cash for other inverstments versus buying a place for cash as others have above.
Of course, I know that you know these things. It’s just that the wisdom (or lack therof) of paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back, depends on the alternatives.[/quote]
The OP was questioning whether he should pay cash, or get a mortgage. It wasn’t a rent vs. buy issue.
[/quote]
No, the original question was not cash or get a mortgage. The question was how big of a mortgage. All cash wasn’t an option. And I’m quite sure I didn’t address rent vs. buy.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=CA renter]
I’ve often questioned the wisdom of paying a dollar in interest in order to save 30-40 cents in taxes.Am I missing something?
[/quote]The answer to your question is yes, you are missing something in that statement. You are missing the alternatives for comparison.
Obviously in a vacuum it makes no sense to pay $1 to save 30-40 cents in taxes.
It’s not as simple as comparing paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back versus not paying that dollar.
If you compare
A. paying $1 and saving 30-40cents in taxes (by having a mortgage)
to
B. paying 75 cents and saving zero in taxes (by renting)
it might make sense, depending on other deductions relative to the standard deduction.You can also compare the use of cash for other inverstments versus buying a place for cash as others have above.
Of course, I know that you know these things. It’s just that the wisdom (or lack therof) of paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back, depends on the alternatives.[/quote]
The OP was questioning whether he should pay cash, or get a mortgage. It wasn’t a rent vs. buy issue.
[/quote]
No, the original question was not cash or get a mortgage. The question was how big of a mortgage. All cash wasn’t an option. And I’m quite sure I didn’t address rent vs. buy.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=CA renter]
I’ve often questioned the wisdom of paying a dollar in interest in order to save 30-40 cents in taxes.Am I missing something?
[/quote]The answer to your question is yes, you are missing something in that statement. You are missing the alternatives for comparison.
Obviously in a vacuum it makes no sense to pay $1 to save 30-40 cents in taxes.
It’s not as simple as comparing paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back versus not paying that dollar.
If you compare
A. paying $1 and saving 30-40cents in taxes (by having a mortgage)
to
B. paying 75 cents and saving zero in taxes (by renting)
it might make sense, depending on other deductions relative to the standard deduction.You can also compare the use of cash for other inverstments versus buying a place for cash as others have above.
Of course, I know that you know these things. It’s just that the wisdom (or lack therof) of paying a dollar to get 30-40 cents back, depends on the alternatives.[/quote]
The OP was questioning whether he should pay cash, or get a mortgage. It wasn’t a rent vs. buy issue.
[/quote]
No, the original question was not cash or get a mortgage. The question was how big of a mortgage. All cash wasn’t an option. And I’m quite sure I didn’t address rent vs. buy.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
Something no one wants to hear but it’s the truth.
It’s So Simple,
Housing is 20% of the economy in most locals (not all but most)
Agents, escrow, insurance, finance , landscape, builders,… etc the list goes on.YOU WILL NEVER HAVE AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..[/quote]
I think you’re mostly right here, despite the hyperbole. We actually have had a small recovery, which is miraculous under the circumstances. But I think you’ve also jumped to the conclusion that if real estate hits bottom, then there will be a recovery. Not so fast. It’s not just real estate that drives so many local economies. It’s construction. The bottoming out of housing prices and reduction of inventory overhang by itself will not guarantee that construction picks up. (In the short term it will. Guaranteed. Because builders build. It’s what they do. Until they can’t sell what they build.)
For some local economies, it will. But others just don’t need any more housing. The country as a whole isn’t over-built for 18 months. It may be over-built for closer to 5 years. Some markets for a generation. And more construction in over-built locales will just put additional downward pressure on prices.
So I think you’re right, but maybe a bit too optomistic. Fixing the underwater homeowners, by itself, may not even help much.
The real recovery, including massive job creation, will have to come from somewhere else. Given the current political climate and the current corporate zeitgeist, I haven’t a clue where that would be.
-
AuthorPosts
