Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM in reply to: Tax question…file as singles, married but file separately or file jointly #380588April 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM in reply to: Tax question…file as singles, married but file separately or file jointly #380776
SK in CV
ParticipantThose three choices aren’t possible.
If the couple is married, they must file as a married couple, either jointly or separately. If they’re not married, they can only file as single. (There are some rare extenuating circumstances where this isn’t true.)
If they have no other income and no significant other deductions, and these options were all available, the difference between the three would be less than my minimum consulting fee.
You now owe me $250.
April 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM in reply to: Tax question…file as singles, married but file separately or file jointly #380824ParticipantThose three choices aren’t possible.
If the couple is married, they must file as a married couple, either jointly or separately. If they’re not married, they can only file as single. (There are some rare extenuating circumstances where this isn’t true.)
If they have no other income and no significant other deductions, and these options were all available, the difference between the three would be less than my minimum consulting fee.
You now owe me $250.
April 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM in reply to: Tax question…file as singles, married but file separately or file jointly #380951ParticipantThose three choices aren’t possible.
If the couple is married, they must file as a married couple, either jointly or separately. If they’re not married, they can only file as single. (There are some rare extenuating circumstances where this isn’t true.)
If they have no other income and no significant other deductions, and these options were all available, the difference between the three would be less than my minimum consulting fee.
You now owe me $250.
March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM in reply to: Construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January #368291ParticipantPerspective and details
“Construction” is a bit misleading. These were starts. Permits were up slightly. Completions were still down. Entire report is here. http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst.pdf
February was still significantly lower than 12 of the last 14 months, (and the 3rd lowest since the early ’60’s) and 47% lower than February a year ago.
More importantly, single family starts were only 1.1% higher than January and 50.5% lower than last February.
One number does not make a trend. Two more months like this and we may be at the bottom. But this bottom would only be for construction. It would mean that further job losses related to construction would be minimal. Unless inventory is reduced (requiring new home sales in excess of completions) we still will not be at the bottom price wise.
March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM in reply to: Construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January #368577ParticipantPerspective and details
“Construction” is a bit misleading. These were starts. Permits were up slightly. Completions were still down. Entire report is here. http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst.pdf
February was still significantly lower than 12 of the last 14 months, (and the 3rd lowest since the early ’60’s) and 47% lower than February a year ago.
More importantly, single family starts were only 1.1% higher than January and 50.5% lower than last February.
One number does not make a trend. Two more months like this and we may be at the bottom. But this bottom would only be for construction. It would mean that further job losses related to construction would be minimal. Unless inventory is reduced (requiring new home sales in excess of completions) we still will not be at the bottom price wise.
March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM in reply to: Construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January #368745ParticipantPerspective and details
“Construction” is a bit misleading. These were starts. Permits were up slightly. Completions were still down. Entire report is here. http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst.pdf
February was still significantly lower than 12 of the last 14 months, (and the 3rd lowest since the early ’60’s) and 47% lower than February a year ago.
More importantly, single family starts were only 1.1% higher than January and 50.5% lower than last February.
One number does not make a trend. Two more months like this and we may be at the bottom. But this bottom would only be for construction. It would mean that further job losses related to construction would be minimal. Unless inventory is reduced (requiring new home sales in excess of completions) we still will not be at the bottom price wise.
March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM in reply to: Construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January #368782ParticipantPerspective and details
“Construction” is a bit misleading. These were starts. Permits were up slightly. Completions were still down. Entire report is here. http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst.pdf
February was still significantly lower than 12 of the last 14 months, (and the 3rd lowest since the early ’60’s) and 47% lower than February a year ago.
More importantly, single family starts were only 1.1% higher than January and 50.5% lower than last February.
One number does not make a trend. Two more months like this and we may be at the bottom. But this bottom would only be for construction. It would mean that further job losses related to construction would be minimal. Unless inventory is reduced (requiring new home sales in excess of completions) we still will not be at the bottom price wise.
March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM in reply to: Construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January #368898ParticipantPerspective and details
“Construction” is a bit misleading. These were starts. Permits were up slightly. Completions were still down. Entire report is here. http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst.pdf
February was still significantly lower than 12 of the last 14 months, (and the 3rd lowest since the early ’60’s) and 47% lower than February a year ago.
More importantly, single family starts were only 1.1% higher than January and 50.5% lower than last February.
One number does not make a trend. Two more months like this and we may be at the bottom. But this bottom would only be for construction. It would mean that further job losses related to construction would be minimal. Unless inventory is reduced (requiring new home sales in excess of completions) we still will not be at the bottom price wise.
February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM in reply to: Stimulus Watch: San Diego, California & the rest of the states #345303ParticipantIt has to be the former.
The cost is only $2 million. The cost of the bridge must be in the $20-50 million range. Or more. Actually, I have no idea other than it must be way more than $2 million.
There are a couple blocks of Regents that are just 2 lanes, from Genesee to Executive Dr, then it goes to 4 lanes until almost the end at the canyon rim.
Seems pretty low priority, but there might be a few hours a day when 4 lanes are needed.
February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM in reply to: Stimulus Watch: San Diego, California & the rest of the states #345628ParticipantIt has to be the former.
The cost is only $2 million. The cost of the bridge must be in the $20-50 million range. Or more. Actually, I have no idea other than it must be way more than $2 million.
There are a couple blocks of Regents that are just 2 lanes, from Genesee to Executive Dr, then it goes to 4 lanes until almost the end at the canyon rim.
Seems pretty low priority, but there might be a few hours a day when 4 lanes are needed.
February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM in reply to: Stimulus Watch: San Diego, California & the rest of the states #345734ParticipantIt has to be the former.
The cost is only $2 million. The cost of the bridge must be in the $20-50 million range. Or more. Actually, I have no idea other than it must be way more than $2 million.
There are a couple blocks of Regents that are just 2 lanes, from Genesee to Executive Dr, then it goes to 4 lanes until almost the end at the canyon rim.
Seems pretty low priority, but there might be a few hours a day when 4 lanes are needed.
February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM in reply to: Stimulus Watch: San Diego, California & the rest of the states #345768ParticipantIt has to be the former.
The cost is only $2 million. The cost of the bridge must be in the $20-50 million range. Or more. Actually, I have no idea other than it must be way more than $2 million.
There are a couple blocks of Regents that are just 2 lanes, from Genesee to Executive Dr, then it goes to 4 lanes until almost the end at the canyon rim.
Seems pretty low priority, but there might be a few hours a day when 4 lanes are needed.
February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM in reply to: Stimulus Watch: San Diego, California & the rest of the states #345865ParticipantIt has to be the former.
The cost is only $2 million. The cost of the bridge must be in the $20-50 million range. Or more. Actually, I have no idea other than it must be way more than $2 million.
There are a couple blocks of Regents that are just 2 lanes, from Genesee to Executive Dr, then it goes to 4 lanes until almost the end at the canyon rim.
Seems pretty low priority, but there might be a few hours a day when 4 lanes are needed.
ParticipantExactly.
Sample is just too small to jump to any conclusion based on these numbers.
The last 5 months of closings in SB have been
Month… #… Average…… Median
Dec …16 …$1,160,094 … $1,000,000
Nov … 3 … $925,385 ….. $943,155
Oct … 8 … $732,262 …… $665,000
Sept…12 …$1,047,042 …. $800,000
Aug …13 …$1,209,277 ….. $987,000The numbers are all over the place. So few closings and such a wide variation in the neighborhoods, these numbers by themselves are almost meaningles.
-
AuthorPosts