Malcolm's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 2838 - 2877 of 2,877     Last »

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 9, 3:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_aa0f8 says
Noticed while looking at zillow that in my area foreclosure have gone up 3X in the past 6 months?

Are any other locale seeing a creep up of foreclosures?

Yes, most definitely. I sold my house a couple of months ago and was stunned to see similar homes with slightly higher asking prices, which were bank owned. I did well, but wow, that was a surprise.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 9:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

We saw this back in 2007 as a symptom of the pending bubble burst. First, competition between brokers, even in a normal market, will encourage discounting in high priced markets like San Francisco and Southern California. Example, a couple of years ago, I sold some houses in Jackson, MS. The 6% commission on $15,000 houses is a fair commission for the work. The work is roughly the same on a half million dollar house in San Diego, so if supply is short, listing agents will bid against each other for a listing. Fast forward to a couple of months ago, I sold my house in San Diego for a total of 3%. The agents were satisfied and I saved over $12,000. Despite prices being unaffordable again,there is a seller's dilemma of "Cool, I have $100,000 of equity, but if I sell where do I live, and do I want to pay sky high property taxes on a new place?" Despite strong numbers, there are actually very few buyers who can qualify for $750K loans, especially in the pricier areas. The feedback I got was that in San Diego, those markets are flat and starting to drop. In another post, I made the observation of houses in foreclosure for just a little more than I priced my house for.

Agents are never happy, understandably, they either have a situation where there are many buyers and not much inventory, or they have a glut of inventory and no buyers. In San Diego, they have the worst of both worlds, and then on top of that, because Southern California can be lucrative for agents there are zillions of agents desperate to get a listing. So sit back and watch, the next stage will be pictures of dozens of lock boxes and intersections cluttered with for sale signs.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 9:53am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

People are living in garages, which is not a big deal on its own. San Diego even waived fines if people would simply get the proper permit for illegal conversions. Now, with the short-term rental opportunities, communities are finding that struggling residents are turning their homes into hotels. They are desperate and communities don't want transients, so we have a very heated good-faith dispute. It is very easy to do a conversion, some people already have finished garages. Do that BTW, it adds value to take the time to drywall your garage walls and ceiling. If you have a nice car, it looks bitchin' to have it in a finished garage, with an epoxy coated floor.

You will often also see RVs with electric cords going to a house. People let extended family live in RVs, pool houses, pretty much any space. My brother-in-law took a single family house, walled off the master bedroom, built a little casita and has my mom living in a small trailer house (tastefully done) on the property. So a single family residence is actually four units. Other larger homes are being chopped up to have like six units. I hear stories in Palo Alto, of whole communities of RVs on neighborhood streets. I would not try to move here under any circumstances at this time.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 2:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
Why are new shipping routes already planned?

We are not talking of scientists. These are business people. Are they lying too?

Sorry, but while it is interesting evidence, the proof will be if it is viable by 2040. Those business people say, no it is not viable now, but maybe in the future. There are many articles saying 2040 or 2050 at the earliest. This is not proof of anything. It is an economic benefit if global warming is real, and it has been far less than the models predicted.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
It has been largely as model predicted, 2015 appears on that interactive map, and you guys are fighting a rear guard battle.
You had your days in 2004.
Now every year that passes make you sound more and more like idiots refusing stodgily to bow to reality.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

I really want people to take this seriously. In your top picture you can see the high tide line. I have been to Alaska and other places with real tides like that.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_13e7f says
Onvacation says
The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

Even though I am skeptical, I too find it equally arrogant when people say there is no climate change at all. The climate is always changing. The issues are whether it is caused by man, by how much and what are the real threats if any. I have heard multiple speakers claim adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases crop yields.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

I think that is a valid criticism of the skeptic side. Here is what you are missing:
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true. Sorry, in no way did the alarmist models come true. If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model and it is unfair to then criticize someone for "not believing" in climate change. This is science, you believe in things that haven't been proven. If they have been proven, it is not a belief, and I knew an arrogant Oceanography professor at SDSU who in the 90s actually had the gall to claim that man-made global warming was law, not theory.
3. Don't believe me, this is what we had to grow up with.......

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

In my opinion you would be able to see 5" difference in the high tide water line. That is the width of your hand. My methodology takes your concerns into account. I simply ask someone to show me an old picture of a fixed point in the ocean and then show me that the water or water line is higher.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Like I said, I have the challenge out there to anyone who can provide pictures to your standards that show sea level rise. I can only give my and other real world observations because I happen to travel and also live on the coast. I have lived in Florida as well. I visited recently and guess what, I am looking for old pictures to compare with. I visited my birthplace in the Caribbean, my home movie of a cove looks just like my dad's film from 1971 when I was born. I am still working on more of these historic pictures. Here is another pair from that same source I cited earlier:

New Zealand 1918

Present day

Tell me what you think.

Another good one from the site:

Nice, France 1840

Present day
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:51pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

It will be a dead horse soon. Enough people are speaking up. The reason we can't let it be is because this country is making costly policy decisions on the assumption that this religion is science.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

DoofusRicky says
WookieMan says
Why is there another climate change thread?

Brother wookie just between you and I, I will secretly confess that this is not in all probable fact a climate change thread. It is a rather poorly constructed but still curious psychology experiment.

Ah yes, the insults start when someone is challenged. That is why I call it a religion. You are not the first to balk at a real debate on the issue.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Like I said, the challenge is out there. If you think there really is a consensus and the science is even more certain you should look up Climategate. Here is a little more education for you.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

It would be, except that you are making the claim, and some claim as much as a foot rise. I put the challenge out there for you to prove sea level rise. My evidence, which is unscripted, unaltered, certainly does not show sea level rise. Yes, I believe you would see the width of a hand in the photographs. For the Cove you can find a spot and put the cursor on it.

No, your logic is strange, why would I take a challenge as a condition to you accepting a challenge. Go find the smoking gun, I told you I am open to the proof. Show me the proof.

So far you've done two things, you said you were up to show me visual proof of sea level rise over time and then said that the sea level rise isn't noticeable because of photo resolution, understand, people are claiming entire islands have already been covered by rising sea level, and you are worried about a pixel?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

BTW, if you are so sure about sea level rise maybe you can tell me how it is calculated. Actually, let me tell you, it is called the budgeting method. Basically they look at satellite images and estimate where all the known water is then estimate what it is doing. Observations proved no sea level rise and the precise method of using a satellite to lock onto a beacon on a buoy didn't get the desired results so those results are inconclusive and not used.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

This is pretty funny. The premise here is that if (1) someone ignores the fact that you cannot resolve 5 inches in the picture and (2) ignores the fact that tides vary as pointed out already and (3) assume that a few point visual measurements are more accurate than the average of many measurements around the world over decades, then we can prove that climate change is a fraud.
Who is following the evidence and who is following blinded by cognitive bias again? Will this thread make it to 100 comments? Will Malcom claim at that point that nobody has answered his question? I'm titillated.

It is so easy to prove me wrong. It just takes real evidence. You stepped up and can't produce it.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

I didn't say my pictures were proof of 0 sea level rise, I said they were evidence contradicting sea level rise. The whole premise of this is to allow anyone to provide me visual proof at any resolution that sea level has risen. No one has done so, yet they argue the point with me, in essence stepping up to a challenge to please show me where sea level has risen, with a visual.

I'm not disrespecting anyone's opinions, just show me the real proof.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
Malcolm says
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of ma...

1. It is one thing to say as a blanket statement that my points have all been refuted, what points and by who? I don't read denier blogs, I actually look at both sides to satisfy my curiosity.
2. Point 2, all you are doing is speculating. Not science.
3. You claim no alarmist scenarios before 2100? Try by the 1990s, I even provided the tape. Watch it, learn it, live it.
4. You say there is no model, but earlier you say "the theory" all the models went into a theory, they are all overstated. I can provide videos of that as well. I have compiled a pretty vast group of source videos dealing with every element.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

DoofusRicky says
Malcolm says
I didn't say my pictures were proof of 0 sea level rise, I said they were evidence contradicting sea level rise.

I stand corrected. They are proof of the absence of sea level rise exceeding the pixel size of your photograph which as far as I can determine is well over a foot.

Fortunately for the warmist community, that isn't what scientists have measured.

LOL, the diplomatic side of me was going to at least propose that we concede it is not more than a foot. Yes, my evidence is merely putting it out there that I am consistently not seeing noticeable sea level change over decades. But that's cool, I had a similar discussion with an old friend, he asserted 2 1/2 inches over 150 years. These pictures are just for a baseline, and I really am open to looking at pictures showing the opposite. Like I also said, I am compiling images wherever I can as to not just have a few data points.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
1 - checkout and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

1 I get that it is a religion to you. Journalists were reporting on the science. All of the predictions failed to materialize. ie, no climate refugees, plenty of polar bears. It is your side that has been debunked and I have many videos made by former colleagues who are disgusted by how the science has been hijacked because it is a "gravy train".
2 Like I have said to many others, predictive theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Well, I'll start caring about sea level rise when you can.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_f45f6 says
In San Diego difference between highest and lowest tide is around 7 feet. So yeah - even if the most extreme predictions of sea level rise come true, for the next 100 year you can still make a picture of the same place with exactly the same sea level, and use it as a proof, that sea level is not rising.
Bonus points - go now, carve something into a rock at high tide, and continue making photos every month when water level is exactly the same. Repeat for 1200 months.
irrefutable evidence is yours.

Bingo, that's the point of comparing high water lines. Nature does just what you say, and over time, if the sea level has risen, the high water line, that gets stained onto some rocks and concrete will have to move up, otherwise no rise. The extent of the tides is meaningless, these pictures are not staged at some particular time, it is only to compare the high water line to demonstrate no apparent change. Admittedly, the resolution is such that I can't prove no change, but it is a start to observe, just as you say.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

This should take care of most of the criticisms. Remember, I simply asked for anyone to show me tangible proof of sea level rise, not one picture, nothing has been provided here and other places that I have asked. Instead of proving climate change, the alarmist side insists on us disproving climate change. I was asked to cite things that everyone over 40 remembers, like show me where they predicted global cooling. Show me a paper that didn't come true. Well, this video shows all of that, with actual images of the papers. If you watch this and don't at least question the scientific consensus on man made climate change, formerly known as global warming, then we will simply be at an impasse until 2050 when we'll see if regular commercial ships are making the North Passage.

P.S. Stop the video at 37:39 and cllick on this link. It is sure to get a little chuckle:
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:38am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

justme says
Malcolm says
This should take care of most of the criticisms.

Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?

I would say no. I am a denier of bunk science and organized religions, like alarmist climate change. Please watch the video, then you can classify me however you want.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_1fe2e says
I'm curious why I should watch a near 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field, has no published work on it, and is presumably a self-appointed hobbiest "expert," ..... and from that, you believe I will somehow get all the answers I need. Seriously? What about all the actual scientists working in the field? I can't get the answers from them? They wouldn't be a better source? Yes or no?

Suit yourself, but anyone who does watch it will either be convinced or at least have a clearer understanding on the technical issues the skeptics have. The reason it is so long is because it is very thorough with backup on every point. I love how being a geologist and someone who worked on the software on weather models, among other impressive credentials, is so easily dismissed as not a scientist in the field. He is certainly qualified to review their methodology.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

So there!! :)
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 5:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Pretty much what anon says. I am surprised by the question, frankly. It is a very compelling video, it is your choice to ignore it. At least click on the link and look at the video at the specified time code, you'll get a laugh. It was something I stumbled across and put them together when I recognized the Daily Telegraph logo.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 14, 9:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fascinating. I preferred it too, even when the woman was really cool. I always thought it was personal preference.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 15, 2:33pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

If there is no new bubble, why is the State of California offering cash to homeowners to resolve pending foreclosures? I suspect it is because the State is now solvent due to high property tax revenue and it fears a massive deficit if prices readjust. The logic is to hold up the first dominoes from falling. I just sold my house, it was the least expensive in the area. It took a normal amount of time to sell, less than a month, but with hundreds of views per day and good foot traffic. There were houses priced just slightly more and they were foreclosures. Yes, the rent had climbed to where I had interest at $2,300 per month for San Marcos. Unfortunately, the tenant quality was worse than I had ever seen before. Everyone was dead broke with a story. My real estate agent told me the higher end market is now at a standstill (don't give me the whole, it is winter bit) he had observed this all throughout summer. I listed in October.

Here are the differences this time verses last time.

1. Yes, rents are higher now, but like I said above, the renters are desperate people. I saw mainly cases where the woman had a job and the man had absolutely nothing going on. Also, many nicer neighborhoods are cracking down on short term rentals, so that is impacting the ability of leveraged owners to pay their mortgages.
2. There aren't the time bomb loans that we had before. Yes, they pretty much did away with loans that start at 1% and then go to 10%, however, the reason we are in this situation with 3.5% fixed rate mortgages is because the government re-inflated the bubble by simply lowering the mortgage rates. They basically are stuck there unless we want to detonate the time bomb once again. Also, if rates go up, the stock market will implode as well. The Feds have F'd themselves and good this time.
3. Don't look for massive AIG bailouts this time, they learned from the last time and things are now structured differently. Non FDIC loans, MBS's, all that stuff, will be allowed to fail this time.
4. So there are some fundamentals that are different as far as owners having their payments jump, which by most accounts, was the main trigger last time. A trigger will make a correction happen faster, but fundamentals still say that houses are more horribly overpriced in San Diego than last time. Another fundamental is that again, we are fueling a prosperous economy with mortgage debt, not production. This ALWAYS comes back to haunt people and governments. We saw, last time, that people were more than willing to walk away from a house just because they found themselves upside down by 10 or 20K. Those same clowns are now homeowners again and will do exactly the same thing. That was the moral hazard, last time, of making it easy to do so. This is especially true of the latest round of buyers this last year who have non recourse mortgages. They won't have personal liability or a tax consequence for walking way from their initial loan. Why would someone pay $4,000 a month on a house they can rent for $2,000 a month, when they owe more than it is worth?
5. The tactic of lowering interest rates to maintain property values worked last time, this time, there is no option to do so. The government would literally be subsidizing negative mortgage APRs. The government basically lowered its lending rate from 5 percent to 0 percent to the banks. While we have had a couple of symbolic rate hikes, there is no more rate cutting possible. Certainly, there is less than a point or so, not significant.

So the takeaway is, there is nothing to say prices can't fall. In fact, I'm betting San Diego will have a price decline this year. The severity could be the same or worse than last time, mainly because there is nothing left to pump the valuations back up with cheaper money. An investment property has to make money or it will go to foreclosure, plain and simple, so the maximum an investment property should go for would be an amount less than the monthly rent. I can see that easily shaving a few hundred thousand off of most of the houses here.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 15, 2:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Ah yes, and let's not forget that tax reform bill, which has taken the tax incentive away from the most expensive mortgage debt. If it is worthwhile, I picture homeowners putting their homes in LLCs and then renting from themselves. That would be a fun discussion.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 15, 3:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HeadSet says
A household income of $200k is well above "middle class," even in LA.
From CNN/Money:

That's the fundamental problem. Despite the big talkers, that is a large income by any stretch, and very few people make that consistently.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 15, 3:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HeadSet says
But shouldn't the rich be paying more of their fair share and doesn't curtailing home price increases make home buying more affordable for the next generation?

This is the most disgusting part about shoring up prices. Why should new buyers pay artificially high prices because the government wants to protect its tax base as well as FDIC deposits?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 15, 9:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I put on my accounting thinking cap and just realized some things we haven't even touched on.

Someone mentioned second homes and I realized now there are a whole group of people who are going to get pummeled by this tax bill. Ironically, a few that will get hit really hard are Trump voters. Not to say there aren't rich people who see it as patriotic to pay their fair share.

Anyway, here are some scenarios that we weren't thinking of:

A friend bought a house with a gift from his dad. It is a $1 million dollar house in Encinitas. So this house has a mortgage of $500K and a tax bill of $12,000/year. So, now this middle class couple living barely within their means won't have a tax deduction for the mortgage. I just researched the law on CNN money and found that "This is pretty clearly a marriage penalty," said Faulhaber from Georgetown. "If you have two unmarried taxpayers both paying $10,000 in SALT, they will get an aggregate $20,000 when they file, whereas if they get married they suddenly lose $10,000 in deductions." As a married couple the limit is the same as one individual.

It doesn't stop there. This same family, his parents, own multiple million dollar homes as speculative investments. Probably paid with cash. Now they have no deduction of the property taxes of all but one of their homes. As mentioned earlier, people will pretty much all lose the deductibility of their vacation homes. And on top of that, with all that said and done, they now have no deduction for state income taxes in California. That is basically a 10%+ additional tax that is not deductible if they max out the deduction somewhere else. It still gets worse because state income tax is based on the adjusted federal income. If the state income tax paid isn't deducted at the federal level, then tax is due on that state tax that wasn't deductible. So, in essence, not only is someone paying a federal tax on the state income tax withheld, they then get to pay state income tax on the state income tax withheld too. Yikes! A workaround might be to change the classification of second homes to be rentals and then never rent them out. There aren't time limits for income property losses, but then again, people would lose their gains exemptions after doing that for three out of the previous five years. It will definitely be explored, I'm sure.

But wait, there's more: Rich people have another place they love to use as a write-off and a status symbol. Yes, the best of both worlds. Their yachts. Believe it or not, a yacht is deductible as a second home. So now, all of those multi-hundred thousand dollar boats at the marina are not deductible for any property taxes or loan (cough cough) mortgage interest.

And one more group who are going to hate this are people who have large past due tax bills. Basically, if you weren't able to pay your tax bills on time, or had prior tax bills, they are not deductible anymore above the $10,000 limit. Again, for individuals and married couples. I am so glad I am not married.

So, the more I think about this tax bill, I feel like it will most definitely hit the wealthy harder than the lower income brackets. I am concerned by how drastically it will hit some who are not prepared for it.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 1:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says
You picture homeowners being audited then paying back taxes and penalties to the IRS then. Go look at the Economic Substance Doctrine before you try this at home.

Great point, but I don't picture many prosecutions. Obviously someone just calling a house a rental, never renting it, or worse, using it as a second residence would be opening themselves up to this. However, tax avoidance is not illegal in any way. There is no reason an LLC can't own a house. It is a legal entity. Your point intrigues me because I know that people will find a workaround. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Nothing says I can't call a second home a rental, and rent it to a relative for below market rent.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 1:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

For those who think we are going to see a seasonal dip and that the market is stronger this time; please consider that before the last meltdown, I never saw a note like this on my 1098 mortgage interest statement. This is my ACTUAL statement, that I just received in the mail.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 4:05pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I remember having a similar issue in 2006 when I wanted to set up an HSA. It is sad that people are still having this stupid problem. My frustration with the HR department not taking it seriously was actually a small part of me leaving that job.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Get a MoviePass. You will thank me, if you go frequently.