- On 21 May 2013
in
Is real estate bubble 2 showing some strain?,
dublin hillz said:
this was a $1T/yr redistributionary flow from the world's savers to the US
home-owning consumer (most people),It sounds like the architects of this heist should face imprisonment.
- On 21 May 2013
in
First Lady: I Could Take Up A Whole Afternoon Talking About Obamas Failures,
dublin hillz said:
Whoops!! Numbers movin the wrong way!!! I guess we'll keep pushing fake scandals and see where it gets us!
Easy explaination... the more people you put on entitlements, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.... the more your base of voters grow..... duhhhhhh.....
How does that exactly "grow the base"? If someone was employed gainfully at a middle class level and above and now they are on food stamps and "entitlements" chances are their standard of living fell dramatically and they are not exactly going to become voters. They are likely to determine what caused them to lose the job and if someone decides that politics and not personal/economic issues were the reason, they are likely to blame the party that in their view caused the job loss with the policy. I don't think bennies and stamps cause "voter base" to grow since the previously gainfully employed want no part of that life long term.
- On 20 May 2013
in
The crushing of the American Dream = Debt of all kinds,
dublin hillz said:
Authorities have one key goal, which is to load people with debts at all cost.
They absolutely need this to create fake 'demand' to maintain the status quo in
a country with stagnant wagesTo a certain extent you are correct. I always believed that much of spending that occurs at shopping malls is via credit card debt. Same thing for other discretionary spending such as dining out. If someone spends even a penny in interest on those things, it indicates that one cannot afford them. Unfortunately the masses do not rebel and stop this behavior which allows the puppeteers to contunie paying low wages.
- On 17 May 2013
in
Housing starts plummet,
dublin hillz said:
I am all for people finding a way to beat the system - either by paying off mortgage and making HOA/property tax via passive investment income or by people paying rent via passive investment income (which will obviously require a much larger nest egg compared to option 1). What I will never understand is how some folks here are paying $36,000-$48,000 rent per year and are acting like they have great deals as if they are beating the system vs buying. That's just insane!
- On 17 May 2013
in
But But But Housing is the only game, you must BUY!,
dublin hillz said:
Also, my point is that if I extended myself to buy in the SFBA like most,
then I wouldn't be able to travel. I would need to work full-time all the time
just to cover the costs which are over double what I pay now. I am not saying
everyone is like that. If you own and can travel then amazing. Most SFBA people
buying now or anytime in the past 10 years can't.My travel habits have stayed the same in owning as in renting. Average 2 long vacations per year to foreign countries with each vacation averaging between 9-10 nights each. Additionally, every year take domestic side trips. My constraint on travel is vacation time that I can accrue from work not rent/own. I will be eligible for an additional week of vacation in 2015 and will definitely utilize it.
- On 16 May 2013
in
But But But Housing is the only game, you must BUY!,
dublin hillz said:
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
most people buy because they think it will be the road to riches.
Well, it is, isn't it?
If Rich is defined as being enslaved for 30 years by the bank and infinity by the city. I'd rather define it by travel, no real financial reason to work, and time to devote to family and yourself. Owning a million dollar hut in the SFBA doesn't let people get near that dream.
I don't believe that renting in SFBA can accomplish this objective for most folks. A decent 2 BD apt goes for $2300 at least nowadays. A decent single family home is close to $3,000 at least if not more. That's between $27,600 to $36,000 for decent properties. Assuming one invests for dividends at 4.75% yield, we are talking about needing a nest egg of roughly $590,000 to $760,000 depending on the rent to ensure that one does not have to work to pay the rent. Then there are other expenses that still require additional savings. Most people will never save this much. Even an extraordinarily thrifty person will have serious difficulty accumulating this sort of loot. It is much easier to buy a house below your means and prepay the mortgage. Then, you need to only accumulate enough to cover property tax and HOA which are way way less compared to rent on equivalent properties.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Use Your IRA To Buy First Home?,
dublin hillz said:
From what I have read it is not advisable to save for a downpayment by investing in equities. There's just simply not enough time for you to recover from a market setback if that happens. The best way to save for a downpayment is through a good old fashioned savings account or an appropriate time horizon CD. I am not saying that it's impossible for the investing in stocks for DP to work out, it's just very risky and that risk is highly recommended to avoid.
- On 16 May 2013
in
But But But Housing is the only game, you must BUY!,
dublin hillz said:
I don't get why these arguments get so intense, especially between landlording and investing in equities. They have different risk/reward profiles, different volatilities, different long term expected rates of return and different avenues for leverage. It's like arguing whether stocks or bonds are better investments. Maybe we should bring in 3 game parlays - pays 6:75 to 1. What does that annualize to?
- On 16 May 2013
in
But But But Housing is the only game, you must BUY!,
dublin hillz said:
At the rate so far this year, my stocks have appreciated enough to cover 5 years rent. Sucks I missed the big real estate hoopla that everyone is talking about. I feel horrible not listening to all the real estate bulls around here.
Congrats, but it ain't official till you sell and lock in the winnings . . . .
- On 13 May 2013
in
Crony capitalism = both a corruption of capitalism and a corruption of morals,
dublin hillz said:
The interesting scenario is what would happen under following conditions:
1) Those who have disposable income would never finance anything except the house - cars/clothes/vacations/other discretionary items would be paid in cash/atm/credit card paid off before interest comes due
2) People would hunker down and constrict spending on discretionary items and save as much money as possible for a few years.
Would these behaviors teach the elites not to take things for granted?
- On 9 May 2013
in
Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat,
dublin hillz said:
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
All rapists are communists.
Everyone knows that.
RAPE is what Stalin did every day for breakfast.
Yes and in the evening he would splatter the brains of "prisoners" in the compound walls while getting blitzed on vodka...
- On 9 May 2013
in
Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat,
dublin hillz said:
you know the slogan: illegal today, democrat tomorrow!
What prevents republicans from competing for that demographic? Where is it written or implied that the illegals (who cannot vote by the way so I am assuming you mean their descendants) will automatically vote for the dems?
- On 9 May 2013
in
Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat,
dublin hillz said:
What was the political affiliation of hannibal lector? What were his views on women's rights? Oh yeah he was a sociopath, I don't think he gave a damn . . . unless you are talking about fava beans as a side dish
- On 9 May 2013
in
What Happens to the Housing Market When the Investors Leave?,
dublin hillz said:
I would imagine that investors who can go all in with cash - with that kind of loot are most likely investing for income and capital appreciation is a secondary objective. If someone can drop lets say $650K on a house that they are considering renting out, their competing options are:
1) Buy a single dividend paying stock. T pays 4.75% dividend as of yesterday. That would be $30,875 a year in qualified dividends. 15% tax for feds are regular income tax Cali - combined roughly 25%. The investors keeps $23,156 after taxes assuming that they don't reinvest dividends.
2) Buy a combination of dividend paying stocks. Say average payout is 4.25%. Same tax treatment as above but with less risk due to diversification. $27,625 before tax, $20,718 after tax.
3) High yield bond fund - currently pays roughly 4.2%. $27,300 before tax. Regular income tax rates, assume 38% fed+ cali = $16,926 after tax. Less volatility compared to stocks, interest rate risk offset as fund buys new securities.
4) Munis. Tax free but low yields. Cali long pays 1.97% = $12,805 net. Potential risk if mass trouble in cali.
Lets assume that the house that they buy for $650,000 they can rent out for $2700 a month. $32,400 in rent. Close to 5% yield and most off rent can be off-set by depretiation which dramatically lowers tax bill?
Many will believe at these assumptions that landlording may be more lucrative although it can rightly be questioned whether extra money is worth the headache. However as the above 4 scenarios will become more competative vs landlording they may decide to cash out and "rotate" their money.
- On 9 May 2013
in
Oye Como Libs,
dublin hillz said:
My 2 cents is very simple:
Get rid of all of the lobbys and other corporate-backed organizations that pull on the ears of politicians. Make laws strictly from private voters. Ban donations of corporate or otherwise umbrella/corporate interest to political campaigns. Make the election cycle only 6 months or less.
How about Unions and Trade organizations ? I also like to add Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to the mix.
Why would u get rid of unions? So that average wage/benefits combination and hence the standard of living would go down even further so that companies can increase their dividend payments to investors? That's classic case of redistribution of wealth!
- On 9 May 2013
in
Crony capitalism = both a corruption of capitalism and a corruption of morals,
dublin hillz said:
Unfortunately cronyism can be part of any "ism" system. For example in soviet union the equivalent of cronyism was a word called "blat" which can loosely be translated as "hookup". The soviet gliterrati may not have been financially well off by western standards, but that nomentclatura lived in a parallel universe of luxuries compared to some downtrodden "worker". Communism was famous for shortages in basically everything that matters yet those with "blat" had access to food at discounted prices while a regular person was advised that there is no food at the so called "store". Same thing for getting dibs on some pathetic vehicles like moskvich. And then there's access to the best sanatoriums and the latest antibiotics...
- On 9 May 2013
in
bmwman91's Buying Adventure Log,
dublin hillz said:
I just read that Oakland has topped the state's violent crime rate charts 17 years in a row. The city in 2012 had a higher homicide rate than Chicago.
I'm guessing the bad parts are REALLY bad.
Yes they are and the "good" parts are within a stonesthrow relatively speaking. It's a sad situation - many people consider oaktown to have arguably the best climate in bay area, but that city will never reach its full potential.
- On 3 May 2013
in
Study: Tech Worker Shortage a Myth,
dublin hillz said:
In every field where outsourcing/offshoring/H1B is possible, it will be done. It is not that upper management wants to necessarily pay the least amount of money in general, it's that they want to pay the least amount of money possible for a minimum acceptable quality threshold. They have their ratios.
- On 3 May 2013
in
Food inflation: Forget it,
dublin hillz said:
In places like safeway/luckys, the prices for vegetable and fruits has increased significantly over the last 4 years. For instance a head of lettuce used to be about $1.50, now you are lucky if they offer it "on sale" for $1.99 and I have seen it go for $2.99 especially in safeway. Good thing Sprouts is close to where I live - they have better quality vegetables and at significantly cheaper prices - for instance lettuce there goes for $0.88 - hopefully this continues, they say on their website that they are willing to accept lower profit margins compared to their competitors.
- On 3 May 2013
in
Former Landlord asking me politely for more money for cleaning/fixing,
dublin hillz said:
It's definitely tacky on their part. When we moved out of Archstone in 2011 they basically said that they will take care of cleaning the apartment and will take $150 of the deposit and not even worry about cleaning. Seemed like a fair proposal to me.
- On 2 May 2013
in
Another reason 401K plans are a poor investment,
dublin hillz said:
That will be the day, that banks rewards savers again,
Currently their "reward" is 0.5% for a 58 month CD lol. A regular savings account was yielding around 4% in 2007, better than a current multisector bond fund. This "new normal" may be around for a while.
- On 2 May 2013
in
Another reason 401K plans are a poor investment,
dublin hillz said:
Anyone who has a company match and doesn't at least put away enough to maximize the match is financially illiterate. Not to mention the power of compounding the deferred taxes.
Yes company match is the key - it is free money and considerably lowers the investment risk as a result.
- On 2 May 2013
in
Another Christian terrorist attack that nobody is talking about,
dublin hillz said:
Essentially, I just don't believe that true liberals and true muslims can ever be allies due to significat philosophical differences regarding numerous concepts. Liberal people should always be on the lookout for these guys. If liberals and muslims were the only power groups on the face of the planet it would not take long before a war would break out between the 2 sides.
- On 2 May 2013
in
Another reason 401K plans are a poor investment,
dublin hillz said:
For investment vehicles I believe that the first 2 options in priority are clear cut:
1. Contribute enough to 401K to max out the company match. I tend to invest the most aggressively within the 401K.
2. Max out Roth IRA. I use this vehicle for stuff that's not available to me in the 401K such as emerging market bonds and high yield bond funds. Roth IRA is perfect for this since in a regular investment account the monthly interest payments would be fully taxable at ordinary income rates while in Roth IRA, they are tax free.
3. This is where things get interesting. If you can still save/invest more you can either a) add more to 401K or b) invest in a regular taxable account. Adding more to 401K may mean potentially more money in retirement but at the same time it is harder to withdraw this money and even when you withdraw at retirement you will be paying regular old income tax rates. Option B allows you to pay long term capital gain rates on securities held over 1 year and on qualified dividends (currently 15%) which is a significant tax advantage and not only that but it gives you flexibility to cash in your chips for regular life if you choose such as vacations, cars and other consumer goods. Based on this I would choose option B. - On 30 Apr 2013
in
Sell + Take profit + rent OR Continue to Live in the (own) house?,
dublin hillz said:
If you are not planning on moving out of peninsula, selling and renting is somewhat of a risky strategy. This strategy will work if for example you sell, rent for 5 years; however if you decide to buy again after 5 years in peninsula, the only way you come out ahead is if prices have fallen more in 5 years than what you spent on rent in 5 years. That is a rather unlikely outcome. Now if you just want to cash in your "winnings" and rent in perpetuity, it may be better to get the hell out of peninsula - they have some of the highest and devastating rents in the country unless you are talking about some dump and even then....