[UCGal]

[quote=pri_dk]
A flat tax rate isn’t simple. It’s simple-minded. A platitude that almost no one understands.
[/quote]

I agree with this.
I hear a lot of people argue for and against a flat tax without stopping to consider how it works.

A true flat tax means No Deductions. No mortgage interest rate deductions, no deductions for kids, childcare, etc. No deductions. No sheltering earnings by contributing to a 401k. FLAT tax means that you pay tax on every dollar of income. No more adjusted gross…

This is pretty straight forward for wage earners. Less so for corporations and self employed.

Is it net income? – what constitutes an expense? Do you allow businesses to deduct expenses when you do not allow individuals to make deductions? Is that fair? Do you allow depreciation of assets? How do you write off inventory?

It sounds simple but the reality is that there are teams of lobbyists ready to go to battle to protect their specific deduction.

Now if you’re talking about a marginal flat tax – that allows deductions – and we’re back in the same mess we have now. Just a variation of it. Who decides what deductions apply? How does it work with corporations?

Or we could go with a consumption flat tax – a VAT. That’s what Forbes proposed. That would just push entire sections of the economy under the table. (As it is in Europe.)

Flat tax sounds good until you look at how it would actually work.

[UCGal]

[quote=pri_dk]
A flat tax rate isn’t simple. It’s simple-minded. A platitude that almost no one understands.
[/quote]

I agree with this.
I hear a lot of people argue for and against a flat tax without stopping to consider how it works.

A true flat tax means No Deductions. No mortgage interest rate deductions, no deductions for kids, childcare, etc. No deductions. No sheltering earnings by contributing to a 401k. FLAT tax means that you pay tax on every dollar of income. No more adjusted gross…

This is pretty straight forward for wage earners. Less so for corporations and self employed.

Is it net income? – what constitutes an expense? Do you allow businesses to deduct expenses when you do not allow individuals to make deductions? Is that fair? Do you allow depreciation of assets? How do you write off inventory?

It sounds simple but the reality is that there are teams of lobbyists ready to go to battle to protect their specific deduction.

Now if you’re talking about a marginal flat tax – that allows deductions – and we’re back in the same mess we have now. Just a variation of it. Who decides what deductions apply? How does it work with corporations?

Or we could go with a consumption flat tax – a VAT. That’s what Forbes proposed. That would just push entire sections of the economy under the table. (As it is in Europe.)

Flat tax sounds good until you look at how it would actually work.

[UCGal]

[quote=pri_dk]
A flat tax rate isn’t simple. It’s simple-minded. A platitude that almost no one understands.
[/quote]

I agree with this.
I hear a lot of people argue for and against a flat tax without stopping to consider how it works.

A true flat tax means No Deductions. No mortgage interest rate deductions, no deductions for kids, childcare, etc. No deductions. No sheltering earnings by contributing to a 401k. FLAT tax means that you pay tax on every dollar of income. No more adjusted gross…

This is pretty straight forward for wage earners. Less so for corporations and self employed.

Is it net income? – what constitutes an expense? Do you allow businesses to deduct expenses when you do not allow individuals to make deductions? Is that fair? Do you allow depreciation of assets? How do you write off inventory?

It sounds simple but the reality is that there are teams of lobbyists ready to go to battle to protect their specific deduction.

Now if you’re talking about a marginal flat tax – that allows deductions – and we’re back in the same mess we have now. Just a variation of it. Who decides what deductions apply? How does it work with corporations?

Or we could go with a consumption flat tax – a VAT. That’s what Forbes proposed. That would just push entire sections of the economy under the table. (As it is in Europe.)

Flat tax sounds good until you look at how it would actually work.

[UCGal]

Scarlett –
Our house (one of your target areas – UC) was built in 1963. It had copper pipes for both supply and waste. We’re in process (literally – hubby is home with a wall open and smelly pipes in his hands) replacing the upstairs waste pipes with ABS (plastic). Talking to neighbors who have the same 2 story model – same issue… 47 years later the waste pipes are being replaced. Supply lines are in perfect condition. It appears they weren’t as careful with the slope of the waste pipes when they built this block – and with water, cleaning products, whatever, sitting in the pipes… it corrodes over time. The cast iron parts and brass fittings are in good condition.

We also have upgraded/earthquake-retrofitted sections. This is much less of an issue in a single story house per my husband. If he opens a wall to do anything (add a new outlet, run some new wire/cables) he goes ahead and opens an entire section – adds diagonal bracing, adds insulation (if it’s an exterior wall), if it’s ground floor he adds more bolts to the foundation and strapping to the upper floors. When he replaces the wall he’s opened up, he uses plywood to give it sheer wall stiffness.

This is all probably overkill – he’s doing more than current earthquake standards. But it makes him sleep better at night. To paraphrase the old saying “happy husband, happy life”. LOL

Also, our previous rental (over on Millikin in UC) was built in 62 or 63. It had MUCH better diagonal bracing, sheer walls, etc per hubster. (Family owned the home so hubby did the work on it.) So you can’t extrapolate 100% that you’d need earthquake retrofitting if you buy an early/mid 60’s home in UC. It varies.

Friends who live in PQ were replacing one supply line at a time as the polyB pipes blew out. They finally bit the bullet and replumbed all of the supply lines.

I had a house outside Philly built in 1910. It was obviously still standing/functional. It had balloon framing – which is against code now (you need firestops between floors) – but was great for updating the wiring. It had lathe and plaster walls – which were beautiful – but harder to patch than drywall. The home had very few outlets – and I had to have quite a few added, along with a new service panel… In fact I had to replace some of the original knob & tube wiring.

There are no right/wrong answers on what the best construction is. Todays homes are built with smaller dimensioned lumber, but better wiring. Features people want (dual vanities in the master) are more common in new construction. Larger lots are more common in older homes. It’s all a matter of tradeoffs.

[UCGal]

Scarlett –
Our house (one of your target areas – UC) was built in 1963. It had copper pipes for both supply and waste. We’re in process (literally – hubby is home with a wall open and smelly pipes in his hands) replacing the upstairs waste pipes with ABS (plastic). Talking to neighbors who have the same 2 story model – same issue… 47 years later the waste pipes are being replaced. Supply lines are in perfect condition. It appears they weren’t as careful with the slope of the waste pipes when they built this block – and with water, cleaning products, whatever, sitting in the pipes… it corrodes over time. The cast iron parts and brass fittings are in good condition.

We also have upgraded/earthquake-retrofitted sections. This is much less of an issue in a single story house per my husband. If he opens a wall to do anything (add a new outlet, run some new wire/cables) he goes ahead and opens an entire section – adds diagonal bracing, adds insulation (if it’s an exterior wall), if it’s ground floor he adds more bolts to the foundation and strapping to the upper floors. When he replaces the wall he’s opened up, he uses plywood to give it sheer wall stiffness.

This is all probably overkill – he’s doing more than current earthquake standards. But it makes him sleep better at night. To paraphrase the old saying “happy husband, happy life”. LOL

Also, our previous rental (over on Millikin in UC) was built in 62 or 63. It had MUCH better diagonal bracing, sheer walls, etc per hubster. (Family owned the home so hubby did the work on it.) So you can’t extrapolate 100% that you’d need earthquake retrofitting if you buy an early/mid 60’s home in UC. It varies.

Friends who live in PQ were replacing one supply line at a time as the polyB pipes blew out. They finally bit the bullet and replumbed all of the supply lines.

I had a house outside Philly built in 1910. It was obviously still standing/functional. It had balloon framing – which is against code now (you need firestops between floors) – but was great for updating the wiring. It had lathe and plaster walls – which were beautiful – but harder to patch than drywall. The home had very few outlets – and I had to have quite a few added, along with a new service panel… In fact I had to replace some of the original knob & tube wiring.

There are no right/wrong answers on what the best construction is. Todays homes are built with smaller dimensioned lumber, but better wiring. Features people want (dual vanities in the master) are more common in new construction. Larger lots are more common in older homes. It’s all a matter of tradeoffs.

[UCGal]

Scarlett –
Our house (one of your target areas – UC) was built in 1963. It had copper pipes for both supply and waste. We’re in process (literally – hubby is home with a wall open and smelly pipes in his hands) replacing the upstairs waste pipes with ABS (plastic). Talking to neighbors who have the same 2 story model – same issue… 47 years later the waste pipes are being replaced. Supply lines are in perfect condition. It appears they weren’t as careful with the slope of the waste pipes when they built this block – and with water, cleaning products, whatever, sitting in the pipes… it corrodes over time. The cast iron parts and brass fittings are in good condition.

We also have upgraded/earthquake-retrofitted sections. This is much less of an issue in a single story house per my husband. If he opens a wall to do anything (add a new outlet, run some new wire/cables) he goes ahead and opens an entire section – adds diagonal bracing, adds insulation (if it’s an exterior wall), if it’s ground floor he adds more bolts to the foundation and strapping to the upper floors. When he replaces the wall he’s opened up, he uses plywood to give it sheer wall stiffness.

This is all probably overkill – he’s doing more than current earthquake standards. But it makes him sleep better at night. To paraphrase the old saying “happy husband, happy life”. LOL

Also, our previous rental (over on Millikin in UC) was built in 62 or 63. It had MUCH better diagonal bracing, sheer walls, etc per hubster. (Family owned the home so hubby did the work on it.) So you can’t extrapolate 100% that you’d need earthquake retrofitting if you buy an early/mid 60’s home in UC. It varies.

Friends who live in PQ were replacing one supply line at a time as the polyB pipes blew out. They finally bit the bullet and replumbed all of the supply lines.

I had a house outside Philly built in 1910. It was obviously still standing/functional. It had balloon framing – which is against code now (you need firestops between floors) – but was great for updating the wiring. It had lathe and plaster walls – which were beautiful – but harder to patch than drywall. The home had very few outlets – and I had to have quite a few added, along with a new service panel… In fact I had to replace some of the original knob & tube wiring.

There are no right/wrong answers on what the best construction is. Todays homes are built with smaller dimensioned lumber, but better wiring. Features people want (dual vanities in the master) are more common in new construction. Larger lots are more common in older homes. It’s all a matter of tradeoffs.

[UCGal]

Scarlett –
Our house (one of your target areas – UC) was built in 1963. It had copper pipes for both supply and waste. We’re in process (literally – hubby is home with a wall open and smelly pipes in his hands) replacing the upstairs waste pipes with ABS (plastic). Talking to neighbors who have the same 2 story model – same issue… 47 years later the waste pipes are being replaced. Supply lines are in perfect condition. It appears they weren’t as careful with the slope of the waste pipes when they built this block – and with water, cleaning products, whatever, sitting in the pipes… it corrodes over time. The cast iron parts and brass fittings are in good condition.

We also have upgraded/earthquake-retrofitted sections. This is much less of an issue in a single story house per my husband. If he opens a wall to do anything (add a new outlet, run some new wire/cables) he goes ahead and opens an entire section – adds diagonal bracing, adds insulation (if it’s an exterior wall), if it’s ground floor he adds more bolts to the foundation and strapping to the upper floors. When he replaces the wall he’s opened up, he uses plywood to give it sheer wall stiffness.

This is all probably overkill – he’s doing more than current earthquake standards. But it makes him sleep better at night. To paraphrase the old saying “happy husband, happy life”. LOL

Also, our previous rental (over on Millikin in UC) was built in 62 or 63. It had MUCH better diagonal bracing, sheer walls, etc per hubster. (Family owned the home so hubby did the work on it.) So you can’t extrapolate 100% that you’d need earthquake retrofitting if you buy an early/mid 60’s home in UC. It varies.

Friends who live in PQ were replacing one supply line at a time as the polyB pipes blew out. They finally bit the bullet and replumbed all of the supply lines.

I had a house outside Philly built in 1910. It was obviously still standing/functional. It had balloon framing – which is against code now (you need firestops between floors) – but was great for updating the wiring. It had lathe and plaster walls – which were beautiful – but harder to patch than drywall. The home had very few outlets – and I had to have quite a few added, along with a new service panel… In fact I had to replace some of the original knob & tube wiring.

There are no right/wrong answers on what the best construction is. Todays homes are built with smaller dimensioned lumber, but better wiring. Features people want (dual vanities in the master) are more common in new construction. Larger lots are more common in older homes. It’s all a matter of tradeoffs.

[UCGal]

Scarlett –
Our house (one of your target areas – UC) was built in 1963. It had copper pipes for both supply and waste. We’re in process (literally – hubby is home with a wall open and smelly pipes in his hands) replacing the upstairs waste pipes with ABS (plastic). Talking to neighbors who have the same 2 story model – same issue… 47 years later the waste pipes are being replaced. Supply lines are in perfect condition. It appears they weren’t as careful with the slope of the waste pipes when they built this block – and with water, cleaning products, whatever, sitting in the pipes… it corrodes over time. The cast iron parts and brass fittings are in good condition.

We also have upgraded/earthquake-retrofitted sections. This is much less of an issue in a single story house per my husband. If he opens a wall to do anything (add a new outlet, run some new wire/cables) he goes ahead and opens an entire section – adds diagonal bracing, adds insulation (if it’s an exterior wall), if it’s ground floor he adds more bolts to the foundation and strapping to the upper floors. When he replaces the wall he’s opened up, he uses plywood to give it sheer wall stiffness.

This is all probably overkill – he’s doing more than current earthquake standards. But it makes him sleep better at night. To paraphrase the old saying “happy husband, happy life”. LOL

Also, our previous rental (over on Millikin in UC) was built in 62 or 63. It had MUCH better diagonal bracing, sheer walls, etc per hubster. (Family owned the home so hubby did the work on it.) So you can’t extrapolate 100% that you’d need earthquake retrofitting if you buy an early/mid 60’s home in UC. It varies.

Friends who live in PQ were replacing one supply line at a time as the polyB pipes blew out. They finally bit the bullet and replumbed all of the supply lines.

I had a house outside Philly built in 1910. It was obviously still standing/functional. It had balloon framing – which is against code now (you need firestops between floors) – but was great for updating the wiring. It had lathe and plaster walls – which were beautiful – but harder to patch than drywall. The home had very few outlets – and I had to have quite a few added, along with a new service panel… In fact I had to replace some of the original knob & tube wiring.

There are no right/wrong answers on what the best construction is. Todays homes are built with smaller dimensioned lumber, but better wiring. Features people want (dual vanities in the master) are more common in new construction. Larger lots are more common in older homes. It’s all a matter of tradeoffs.

[UCGal]

[quote=stockstradr]
However, I did notice…the photos of the rear of that property, it looks like a rather unsightly cheap addition has been added, that almost looks like a light construction screen room instead of solid construction living area. It isn’t even stucco’d to match the rest of the home. If the sqr footage of that cheap addition is removed, I’m curious what is the actual sq footage of the home.
[/quote]
To me, it looked like one of those enclosed porch/sunroom/3 season room type things. Not a full blown addition.
Stuff like this: http://www.sunrooms.com/gallery.cfm?gnum=70

[UCGal]

[quote=stockstradr]
However, I did notice…the photos of the rear of that property, it looks like a rather unsightly cheap addition has been added, that almost looks like a light construction screen room instead of solid construction living area. It isn’t even stucco’d to match the rest of the home. If the sqr footage of that cheap addition is removed, I’m curious what is the actual sq footage of the home.
[/quote]
To me, it looked like one of those enclosed porch/sunroom/3 season room type things. Not a full blown addition.
Stuff like this: http://www.sunrooms.com/gallery.cfm?gnum=70

[UCGal]

[quote=stockstradr]
However, I did notice…the photos of the rear of that property, it looks like a rather unsightly cheap addition has been added, that almost looks like a light construction screen room instead of solid construction living area. It isn’t even stucco’d to match the rest of the home. If the sqr footage of that cheap addition is removed, I’m curious what is the actual sq footage of the home.
[/quote]
To me, it looked like one of those enclosed porch/sunroom/3 season room type things. Not a full blown addition.
Stuff like this: http://www.sunrooms.com/gallery.cfm?gnum=70

[UCGal]

[quote=stockstradr]
However, I did notice…the photos of the rear of that property, it looks like a rather unsightly cheap addition has been added, that almost looks like a light construction screen room instead of solid construction living area. It isn’t even stucco’d to match the rest of the home. If the sqr footage of that cheap addition is removed, I’m curious what is the actual sq footage of the home.
[/quote]
To me, it looked like one of those enclosed porch/sunroom/3 season room type things. Not a full blown addition.
Stuff like this: http://www.sunrooms.com/gallery.cfm?gnum=70

[UCGal]

[quote=stockstradr]
However, I did notice…the photos of the rear of that property, it looks like a rather unsightly cheap addition has been added, that almost looks like a light construction screen room instead of solid construction living area. It isn’t even stucco’d to match the rest of the home. If the sqr footage of that cheap addition is removed, I’m curious what is the actual sq footage of the home.
[/quote]
To me, it looked like one of those enclosed porch/sunroom/3 season room type things. Not a full blown addition.
Stuff like this: http://www.sunrooms.com/gallery.cfm?gnum=70

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[Author]

Posts