[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]
Hobie is right.

Car is a depreciating asset, it’s depreciating at a 5- 10 year rate so add 10-20 percent to it’s rate. House is depreciating at 25 year rate, so add 4% to house rate.

So figure the car is costing somewhere between 14-25% in true cost.
while house is running at 7 percent.[/quote]

No, he’s not. He’s right that a car is a depreciating asset, but that’s not the least bit material. The OP owns a car. He owns a house. Both debts have to be repaid. And the amount that has to be repaid doesn’t change based on the value of the security for the loan. So unless he’s planning on letting his car be repossessed or losing his home to foreclosure, he’s going to repay both of those loans.

The very old canard “never finance a depreciating asset” is as stupid as “dollar cost averaging” when buying stocks or mutual funds. Pretty words that aren’t the least bit meaningful.

[SK in CV]

There is a link between higher serum cholesterol levels and dietary supplements that are heavily promoted for weight lifters.

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal on rental losses. If you’re not a real estate professional, real estate rental income is always passive. If the owner actively participates in management, net losses from all rental property of up to $25,000 per year can be used to offset other income, unless modified AGI is over $100K. If modified AGI is over $100K, then the loss limitation is reduced by $1 for every $2 of income, with the deductible losses completely phased out at income of $150K. (those numbers are cut in 1/2 for married taxpayers filing separately.) Unallowable losses are carried over until they can be fully used, or until the properties are disposed of, at which time all previously un-allowed losses can be deducted.

None of this means that the “tax shelter” aspect of real estate is lost, even for higher income taxpayers. If there is positive cash flow, but non-deductible losses for tax purposes, that cash flow is still tax-free (for the time being). Given all the talk I’ve read here over the last few months, about 7% plus cash on cash returns, this really shouldn’t cause much of a problem for recent investors. Even with 20% down payments, if cash flow is really 7% plus, tax losses should be pretty small. With 30% or more down and that kind of return, there won’t be any losses at all in most cases. But there will still be tax sheltered income.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]^^^

It’s not all bad. Also betting that for every person leaving, there’s another coming in either from further east or from abroad. Same deal with people whinging being people leaving NYC or NJ. The replacement rate (mostly from abroad) is good enough to not cause a population loss.[/quote]

You’re right. The net migration from other states is INTO California, not out of California. Even for Texas, the latest migration estimates are that the net migration to Texas is pretty small, between 20 and 30K per year. (20 to 30 thousand more are moving to Texas from California than from Texas to California) At that rate, after 10 years, a whopping 1% of the population will have shifted. At least so far, there hasn’t been any large effect.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]If money is supposedly flowing out of emerging markets into US equities, why have the US market(s) taken such a big hit this year?[/quote]

When deleveraging occurs, everything can get hit. If what we are seeing is deleveraging, then I expect to see more asset price declines going forward. Of course, some will get hit harder than others. Just have to be very cautious and well-informed at this point, IMO.[/quote]

Deleveraging of what? Household debt? It’s been happening for the last 6 years. By some measurements, it’s at the lowest level in decades.

[SK in CV]

[quote=backintown]Whereas most religions actively seek to recruit people to share their beliefs and to belong in their communities, this one screens out and often forbids people from joining their faith on the sole basis of genetic ancestry and ethnic background. Who can get away with this kind of behavior these days? Isn’t this blatant racial discrimination? I wonder why/how this doesn’t even raise an eyebrow in our media.

[/quote]

The media doesn’t raise an eyebrow because it’s a bigoted lie. Jews don’t steal children for sacrifice either.

[SK in CV]

With the exception of the curtailing of interest deduction on consumer debt, none of them were in any way retroactive. Those changes didn’t change future tax benefits of current holdings. It didn’t turn non-taxable investments into taxable investments.

Take the changes in depreciation, for instance. Depreciation on assets acquired before the new law were still subject to the old law. Only new assets placed in service after the effective date were subject to the longer depreciation. (which, btw, was still much shorter depreciation lives than had been in effect just a few years earlier.)

The DC limit change was repealed, and never went into effect. It went back to the smaller of 25% of income or $30,000 per year, indexed for inflation. But even had it not been repealed, prior contributions were still allowed, and no previous contributions were subject to tax until withdrawn.

Same with IRA contributions. It didn’t change anything for previously allowed contributions, only future contributions. We get all kinds of things changing future tax laws. But never that I can think of, has a tax free account suddenly become taxable.

Even the interest deduction wasn’t retroactive. It just changed the future deductibility of interest.

There was a change, right about the same time for tax free muni bonds. But it didn’t affect bonds issued before the new law went into effect. Only future issues.

[SK in CV]

Not exactly. That’s happened, but not very often.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
I not a huge fan of Roth IRAs because I fully expect the government to rescind the tax benefit before most people will receive it. If they can go after government pensions it won’t be hard to go after Roth IRA tax benefits (you’re minority group that has it better than the general population). I prefer the known tax benefit now rather than hopefully getting a tax benefit down the road.[/quote]

Any examples of future tax benefits that have been written into the law and then reversed and repealed? I can’t think of any.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]Everybody that sold AAPL the other day because it’s no longer a growth play is looking for the next growth play.

[/quote]

AAPL hasn’t been a growth play for a very long time. I can’t find any older data real quickly, but it hasn’t had a P/E of over 25 for at least 5 years. FB, based on most recent quarter earnings is at about 50, it was in the thousands not too long ago. Amazon is still over a thousand.

[SK in CV]

Seems like you found the right answer. The “backdoor” Roth is a great vehicle for SOME people. Others, not so much. For those with no IRA accounts of any kind, it’s perfect. If you have any assets in a pre-tax IRA (of any sort, including SEP and SIMPLE IRA’s) it just doesn’t work.

[SK in CV]

Might take a look at some preferred stocks.

[SK in CV]

[quote=6packscaredy]
Because it’s better for kids to have parents who are happy together. And all people are somewhat unreasonable.

It seems like less of a sacrifice to try to be happy with a crazy spouse than to be dead. So if you’re willing to die for your kids you ought to bexwillkng v to try to be happy even if diffivult[/quote]

Is it better for kids to have parents that are miserable together or happy apart? What if kids are all growed up? (Full disclosure: I stayed married until the kids were grown, and I don’t regret it, but I’m not sure that was the right decision.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=6packscaredy]People are willing to lay down their lives for their children but they’ll be dawned if they are required to get along with a somewhat unreasonable spouse…[/quote]

why should people be required or even the slightest bit motivated to get along with a somewhat unreasonable spouse? I think there are a lot of situations where they shouldn’t be. Situations where divorce is by far the best alternative, even encouraged.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]

While I agree that this can be interpreted as “anti-feminist,” please explain why you think it’s incorrect (garbage, as you say), and be specific about your disagreements. Please cite statistics, research, or some sort of evidence to back up your arguments.

It’s one thing to have strong beliefs and opinions, but quite another to think that these opinions constitute fact.[/quote]

Because I don’t think a woman’s main contributions to a marriage are youth, beauty and fertility. Or at least it shouldn’t be. I’d be a complete failure as a father if my daughter thought those were the best things she has to offer. Or if my son thought those were the important attributes when looking for a wife. I’m quite sure none of them would make a list of the top 10 for either of them.

[Author]

Posts