Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
spdrun
ParticipantJust to be nit-picky, Germany is instituting one next year. It’s also had unofficial minimum wages set by union negotiations in a given industry for years.
ParticipantInteresting — so you still get the raw data dump, but they’re just not allowed to give their interpretation. Clever way around heavy-handed government!
Thanks.
ParticipantThis house was sold in 1983 for $96,500. Mortgage rates back then was ~12%. So, monthly payment back then was $794/month. Today, that house just went pending @ $465k and current mortgage rate is ~4.25%. Which puts the monthly payment @ $1830/month. You’re looking at an increase of 2.3x in housing cost for your average middle class family. That doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.
Rates below 5% are an anomaly — costs with such low rates aren’t a good measure of true expenses, since rates only have one way to go in the next year or two.
ParticipantUCGal — interesting. Does anyone have recommendations where to get similar gene testing done now that the FDA has terrorized 23andme into discontinuing their product?
May 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM in reply to: The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes #774403ParticipantI do understand it. The 2% per year increase is a good thing. It allows landlords to plan financially, save for repairs without suddenly being hit by a big unexpected tax bill.
Also, it encourages long-term ownership, which means stability. As well as long-term tenancy. If expenses don’t go up much from year to year, rents for existing tenants can rise very slowly and the tenants will stay.
I’d support removing the loopholes for transfer outside of a family, and maybe support removing it for corporate-owned property, but that’s about it.
May 27, 2014 at 7:40 AM in reply to: The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes #774401ParticipantMy point is that Prop 13 *is* the market rate. At least for residential property, the same protections should apply regardless of usage.
If you want to tax landlords more, the equitable way to do so would be to put a surtax on rental income. Same as taxes on cigarette sales, rental cars, or hotel rooms in many states.
May 27, 2014 at 7:29 AM in reply to: The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes #774399ParticipantHow is a given level of taxation a “subsidy?” It’s just a given level of taxation.
By your logic, any level of taxation below 100% would be a subsidy. Besides, owning to live in is already plenty subsidized vs owning as a business.
As to renters, there are plenty that are engaged in their communities in areas where renting is the norm. Look at NYC and San Francisco for examples of this.
ParticipantAnd I think it’s fair to expect that people will abide by the law.
Inasmuch as harm or credible risk of harm to others exists, yes. Beyond that, I don’t care whether my next-door neighbor jaywalks, remodels a bathroom without a permit, etc.
ParticipantI have to say it’s also unfortunate that he wasn’t interested in women of certain non-WASP persuasions. In my experience, women of certain non-Anglo nationalities have tended to be a bit more forward — perhaps he would have had the fun times he needed to get his confidence up without having to expend much energy.
First girl who was really interested in high school was of Trinidadian origin and a couple years older. She made it very obvious what she wanted, and as a kid who got his fair share of crap as a freshman (just moved to a new town, etc), this was a nice boost of confidence. Still kind of miss her — she’s a doctor in Canada now!
Sometimes the coach telling that kid in the corner — “you look like you’d make a hell of a basketball player…” might be just what’s needed.
ParticipantOne thing I wonder though; how common are these type of crimes in other 1st world countries?
I’ve heard of such things happening in other countries, Europe, Australia, the UK, etc. Crimes like these even happened in the Communist bloc pre-1989, though they were pretty well hushed up…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Hepnarov%C3%A1
The Hepnarova case actually seems pretty similar to this one, though of course no guns were involved, and the perpetrator was a woman.
Participantiin his mind, he was trying, but his effortsinvolved extremely ineffective attemptsbasically just walking around and smiling at girls.
Exactly, so the rejection was mostly in his head … I’d suspect that 99% of the women didn’t even notice he was interested, and the other 1% may have thought it was a passing smile, not really to be acted on.
May 27, 2014 at 5:42 AM in reply to: The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes #774382ParticipantNo need to go through the trouble of any of those three options. Just sell. If taxes make it unprofitable, chances are prices are higher than they should be.
We should not allow speculation or “ownership for profit” of finite natural resources, especially if those resources are in excess of what that person/family needs for their own use.
(a) most landlords are small businesses and work damn hard at maintaining their properties, dealing with tenants, etc
(b) not everyone wants to own. A good supply of inexpensive rental properties is important for mobility — if I have to move to a given city for six months for work, I’d want to rent, not buy
(c) the current situation has proven that a lot of Americans are simply too rock-dumb, not to mention financially retarded to be allowed to buy propertyParticipantBy the accounts I read, he didn’t even try to socialize, but was rather actively anti-social. I wonder if the rejection was all in his head, and if he didn’t ever even try to get a date.
May 26, 2014 at 9:02 PM in reply to: The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes #774353ParticipantProperty taxes cannot be passed on to tenants unless the landlords are willing to accept much higher densities in their rental house.
So what’s a landlord to do when the rental property is no longer profitable because increases can’t be passed on?
I see a few alternatives:
(1) condoize and sell to tenants. takes money.
(2) insurance fire
(3) abandonment/foreclosureMaking rental properties unprofitable is not in the public interest, as shown by (2) and (3). This kind of stuff was very common in the 70s and 80s.
Lastly, a limit on taxation is not a subsidy, any more than taxing incomes at 50% vs 100% is a “subsidy to business.” It’s just a tax cap, which is what it is.
And as far as subsidizing landlords vs owner-occupied, the last decade has shown that many Americans are too financially illiterate to safely own their own homes. Better to put more ownership in the hands of people who can (and do) run the numbers, rather than paying $100,000 over value and operating with zero margin for error because OMG! the view!
-
AuthorPosts
