patrick.net

Would you like fries with that order?

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

3 Truck stop budget fellator

Sigh... I BELIEVE it is spelled fellatiator and NOT fellator. I have not checked the OED on this though.

And why the fuck can't I vote eighteen thumbs up on this post???

ChrisLA says

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.
my advice bud, don’t end up like that…. don’t spend all your money on a housing structure you may end up regretting knowing that you wasted 30 years of your life paying for and not living a life being free.

you know there are certainly worse fates in life than having a house. it really isn't the end of the world.

MarkInSF says

kc6zlv says

The problem I have with it is that it has the potential to allow people to pay very little in taxes based on their income. Someone in another town where land is cheap could open a business making 50 million a year in revenue and pay the same taxes as someone making $30,000 a year with a home where the value of land is high.

You’re going to have a tough time attracting talented workers to your $50M/yr company in the Boondocks. If you succeed and the company is successful, the wages, and hence rental value of the land is going to go up.
And what is somebody making $30K doing living where the land value is high? If they did, they would be living in an apartment building, where the the tax is very low per person since you’ve got so many people on a small plot of land.

There are quite a few people who will move just about anywhere for jobs. Look at the places WalMart has located some of their distribution centers.

There are more people earning $30K in expensive areas than you think. They may have inherited property or money and bought property. They may have purchased the property well before the prices went up.

Here’s a description of the court case that led to property taxes being taken away from the areas they are collected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest

On the one hand, I can see that people are much more amenable to paying property taxes when it goes directly to their local schools (and therefore supports local property values). But on the other hand, it seems unfair that kids in poor areas should get crappy schools. Bad way to start out life.

It’s kind of like taxpayers said “well, if we have to share with poor districts, then we’re not paying property taxes.” So California schools went from near the best to near the worst, tied with Mississippi. Except in rich neighborhoods where fundraising drives raise money that stays in the local school district. Since it’s basically private funding of public schools, the state can’t touch that.

Documentary about it: http://www.aypf.orgbriefs/2004/fb010804.htm

All property taxes in California stay within the county they are collected in. As far as I know it has always been that way.

California's problems with education have a lot more to do with other factors than funding. Throwing money at education isn't going to solve the problem with culture-demographics. Many school districts are wrestling with ESL issues. There is also an attitude that sitting down in a classroom and learning is "acting white." There are many other issues. The amazing thing about it is there are Asian kids going to some of these schools who seem to do just fine. This should really be a big fat clue that it isn't all about money.

The Donald's campaign slogan should be,
"It's time to flush"

2 is good. rest are too softie.

toothfairy says

ChrisLA says

fyi: on channel 7 today they mentioned that the boomer generation is starting to downsize to a more affordable lifestyle since many saved too little for retirement.

my advice bud, don’t end up like that…. don’t spend all your money on a housing structure you may end up regretting knowing that you wasted 30 years of your life paying for and not living a life being free.

you know there are certainly worse fates in life than having a house. it really isn’t the end of the world.

Getting trapped in a forest fire is worse, but that's an act of nature that sometimes can't be avoided. Fiscal irresponsibility however is a human invention and can easily be avoided with prudence. Whats your point exactly?

The "Birther" movement is spreading. I heard a rumor that even Clarence has joined their ranks.

ChrisLA, if you are worried about being trapped than you should never buy a house, never get married, never have kids, never buy a car and definitely don't even have a 9-5 job because that is the ultimate trap.

I am totally in favor of the Teahadists and Birthers purging any moderate photogenic elements of my former party.

Go!

SubOink says

ChrisLA, if you are worried about being trapped than you should never buy a house, never get married, never have kids, never buy a car and definitely don’t even have a 9-5 job because that is the ultimate trap.

Please don't pull out Taputu like naive arguments that world is either black or white. I'm simply advising against 30 year mortgages which trap individual taking away their life and soul. Relying once career and life on coincidence of local area. It's a wasted life, a socialist corporation wet dream, where a worker bee cannot relocate to a better opportunity.

ChrisLA says

SubOink says

ChrisLA, if you are worried about being trapped than you should never buy a house, never get married, never have kids, never buy a car and definitely don’t even have a 9-5 job because that is the ultimate trap.

Please don’t pull out Taputu like naive arguments that world is either black or white. I’m simply advising against 30 year mortgages which trap individual taking away their life and soul. Relying once career and life on coincidence of local area. It’s a wasted life, a socialist corporation wet dream, where a worker bee cannot relocate to a better opportunity.

Great...another Klarek or Joshuatrio where a 30 year mortgage is a life sentence. Do the concepts of selling, shortselling or foreclosing completely escape you guys? Obviously, the latter 2 aren't optimal, but there are risks involved with everything. You realize there is a risk in waiting to buy until you have enough cash to purchase a house, right? It may be a very small risk, but there is a chance the government/fed will succeed in creating high inflation in housing. And if rents rise like many articles are predicting now, you're going to be stuck paying more for your bricks and sticks.

I still think with this economy prices will not go up...if they start to, they will fall back down again eventually.

I live in Vegas, prices went WAY down...and who thought they would? CA state is doing too bad to raise prices.

You forgot prostitute.

ChrisLA says

Whats your point exactly?

i dont see the 30 year mortgage as an evil life sentence that should be avoided. Actually it locks in hour housing expense for 30 years. Once you have income coming in to cover that payment you're pretty much set.

ch_tah says

Great…another Klarek or Joshuatrio where a 30 year mortgage is a life sentence.

Some of us are just allergic to debt. Not our fault you drank the kool-aid.

toothfairy says

i dont see the 30 year mortgage as an evil life sentence that should be avoided. Actually it locks in hour housing expense for 30 years. Once you have income coming in to cover that payment you’re pretty much set.

If what you are saying is true, than why did so many people just end up losing their houses when they didn't want to walk away?

Did their 30 year plan somehow not account for raising interest rates, the fact that they may be unemployed for a really long time, the fact that they may not afford healthcare one day, or economy around them would collapse turning their McMansion into a deserted ghost town with high property taxes and maintenance costs.

Do you personally know where you will be in 15 years? Do you know you will not get very very ill, or fall on difficult times? Most people foreclosed in this country (at least before the crisis) due to medical bills. Do you know if your city turn into a ghost town like in "Roger & Me" when GM closes it's factory (just an example)?

30 year loan for most people is a life sentence which takes on more risk than one should take on reasonably. For others it simply raises a cost of housing because many choose to stretch liability over 30 years raising costs. And all it does is make lots of money for Bankers and Realtors. Someone got to pay for all those extravagant bonuses they give out in the lending industry after all.

joshuatrio says

ch_tah says

Great…another Klarek or Joshuatrio where a 30 year mortgage is a life sentence.

Some of us are just allergic to debt. Not our fault you drank the kool-aid.

If you want to live a debt free life, that's perfectly fine. But as we discussed before, a 30 year mortgage is not indentured servitude or a life sentence. Rather, it can be a very helpful tool.

Another reason Prop 13 was popular was because it made property taxes predictable. No surprises.

So to get a land value tax, we would need to make increases very predictable.

What about Jizz Mopper at the local nudie booth?

ch_tah says

If you want to live a debt free life, that’s perfectly fine. But as we discussed before, a 30 year mortgage is not indentured servitude or a life sentence. Rather, it can be a very helpful tool.

Whatever makes you feel better.

ch_tah says

Great…another Klarek or Joshuatrio where a 30 year mortgage is a life sentence. Do the concepts of selling, shortselling or foreclosing completely escape you guys? Obviously, the latter 2 aren’t optimal, but there are risks involved with everything. You realize there is a risk in waiting to buy until you have enough cash to purchase a house, right? It may be a very small risk, but there is a chance the government/fed will succeed in creating high inflation in housing. And if rents rise like many articles are predicting now, you’re going to be stuck paying more for your bricks and sticks.

Anybody who views home ownership as a gambling operation does not understand home ownership. It was bad during the housing bubble. Today it is inexcusable.

ch_tah says

If you want to live a debt free life, that’s perfectly fine. But as we discussed before, a 30 year mortgage is not indentured servitude or a life sentence. Rather, it can be a very helpful tool.

I have a 30 year since, since 1992. We are not in pre-bubble years when such mortgages made sense, and the economy was doing better. Many are still in denial over the mess that has been caused.

But others are correct, it made no sense to take on an inflated home prices and and equally inflated home loans, which many did during the bubble and could never pay off thus going into foreclosure.

I like many other tax payers WE ALL now on the hook to pay these loans on behalf of people who should have never idioticaly purchased a home using 30yr fixed, ARM, or any other mortgage. WE the taxpayer are now "indentured servitude" for their mistakes.

It is bad for everyone concerned. Like it or not, renter or long term homeonwer you will be the one to pay these loans off.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

If you can’t pay cash for a house, you are begging to be fucked by banks, brokers, all the grim, psychopathic engrossers that flock to real estate to exploit people who need to live indoors.
Otherwise, get a tent and tell the engrossers to fuck themselves and die.

I'll take the tent option to get ready for the cannibal anarchy that is going to follow. :)

joshuatrio says

ch_tah says

If you want to live a debt free life, that’s perfectly fine. But as we discussed before, a 30 year mortgage is not indentured servitude or a life sentence. Rather, it can be a very helpful tool.

Whatever makes you feel better.

So if you could buy a house and have a 30 yr. mortgage with a lower monthly payment than what you would pay to rent the same house, you wouldn't do it?

tatupu70 says

So if you could buy a house and have a 30 yr. mortgage with a lower monthly payment than what you would pay to rent the same house, you wouldn’t do it?

In the BA, it only made sense between early to mid 90s. For many other parts of the nation after 2001, it didnt make any sense. Prices and their mortgages were all a bubble which were going to bite you back and hurt you financially.

thomas.wong1986 says

tatupu70 says

So if you could buy a house and have a 30 yr. mortgage with a lower monthly payment than what you would pay to rent the same house, you wouldn’t do it?

In the BA, it only made sense between early to mid 90s. For many other parts of the nation after 2001, it didnt make any sense. Prices and their mortgages were all a bubble which were going to bite you back and hurt you financially.

So you are changing the conversation from: all 30 year mortgages are bad to 30 year mortgages on "overpriced" houses are bad. Aren't any purchases of an overpriced house bad? Paying cash for a $1M house that eventually is worth $500k is bad too, no? Therefore, if you remove the overpriced part of the equation, it seems like you agree that 30 year mortgages are fine (which is obviously why you used one in the 90's).

tatupu70 says

So if you could buy a house and have a 30 yr. mortgage with a lower monthly payment than what you would pay to rent the same house, you wouldn’t do it?

Not a chance. 30 years is to long. Hell, I'm still in my twenties : - )

Because I've rented for 3 years, I've been able to relocate twice, and more than double my annual income. Moving from the east coast, to the mid west, and again out to the west coast. Opportunities that would have never materialized had I'd been strapped to a house payment.

thomas.wong1986 says

In the BA, it only made sense between early to mid 90s. For many other parts of the nation after 2001, it didnt make any sense. Prices and their mortgages were all a bubble which were going to bite you back and hurt you financially.

Sure--they were during the bubble years. Many places are back down to reasonable levels now.

joshuatrio says

Because I’ve rented for 3 years, I’ve been able to relocate twice, and more than double my annual income. Moving from the east coast, to the mid west, and again out to the west coast. Opportunities that would have never materialized had I’d been strapped to a house payment.

That's fair enough. Renting does offer more flexibility--although you may owe 2 mos. break lease fee. I know everyone thought I was crazy last time I mentioned it, but every time I've moved cross-country there has always been a relocation package. I've done the same-moved from east coast to midwest to CA. as an owner each time. Being an owner didn't stop me...

tatupu70 says

That’s fair enough. Renting does offer more flexibility–although you may owe 2 mos. break lease fee. I know everyone thought I was crazy last time I mentioned it, but every time I’ve moved cross-country there has always been a relocation package. I’ve done the same-moved from east coast to midwest to CA. as an owner each time. Being an owner didn’t stop me…

Never had to pay a break lease fee. I usually sign a 6-12 mo lease and go month to month after the fact. Most circumstances, relocation has always been covered up to a certain amount depending on the company.

Owning a home just makes it more painful, and it's really not worth the headache to me. Plus, when I'm ready to buy a house, I plan on buying it outright, so I don't have to deal with those pesky bankers and their loan docs. Yes, I'm missing the "tax advantage", but when/if I decide to buy, it'll be where I plan on settling down for a while.

joshua, out of curiosity, care to show the math and time frame for your purchase? For example, you have $200k in the bank right now, you save $5k/month, you plan on buying a $500k house, so in 60 months, you'll be able to buy in cash. Other variables can be taken into account, I think you said you have precious metals, so if the trend continues, that would obviously shorten the time frame.

ch_tah says

joshua, out of curiosity, care to show the math and time frame for your purchase? For example, you have $200k in the bank right now, you save $5k/month, you plan on buying a $500k house, so in 60 months, you’ll be able to buy in cash. Other variables can be taken into account, I think you said you have precious metals, so if the trend continues, that would obviously shorten the time frame.

I don't plan on spending near $500k on a home and have no specific time frame in mind for when/if I plan on purchasing. I'd probably relocate to another state before dropping that kind of $$ on a place. I can purchase just outside of Monterey for about $250-300k, but even that seems high for a 1960's 3 bed that needs a full remodel.

Have around $175k in cash - save $3-5k month (depending on what bills hit - or if the wife does any part time work). Stash of PM's putting me over $200k liquid. No debt/loans etc... I'm not a big wig, but not doing to bad either for being in my twenties.

That's really my limit - $200k. I don't think housing should cost much more than that for a decent place in a decent location. No plans on moving to the bay area, and in most other parts of the country, I can buy a nice, new home for $150k + or minus a few grand. So relocation isn't out of the question. Prices still seem to high in CA, and if don't come down any more than they already have - so be it, I'm flexible and can move anywhere I'd like.

shrekgrinch says

kc6zlv says

All property taxes in California stay within the county they are collected in. As far as I know it has always been that way.

No, half goes to the state and half goes to the school district — except when the state decides to raid more.

No, all property taxes stay within the county they are collected in. Property taxes are local taxes subject to rate limitations by the State under Prop 13. They may be spent on state highway upgrades, community colleges, the local CSU campus, but the expenditures stay within the county.

See page 4, second paragraph for an explanation of how property taxes are allocated.

www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/CSLT/Publications/PPICReport.pdf

joshua, thanks. It sounds like you are in a good position to pull off your plan. I think it is much harder to do what you plan in the Bay Area which makes the 30 year mortgage necessary. I'd rather have paid cash and not have a mortgage. But when the total purchase price you mentioned as your limit is about what we paid just as a down payment, the two situations aren't really comparable.

Another reason Prop 13 was popular was because it made property taxes predictable. No surprises.

Yeah. Predictably falling to zero over time.

When prop 13 was passed, the inflation rate was around 8%, but the tax increase was capped at 2%. In other words you're real tax rate would fall 6% over time.

How can anybody look at that and say that's reasonable? Why not cap tax increases on income or sales taxes to 2%, and stick it to the the younger generation that way too?

In the 33 years since 1978, inflation has been 233%.

Yet the tax liability for those that owned since 1978 has only gone up 92%.

Even ignoring the fact housing values outpaced inflation, it makes no sense.

I agree Prop 13 is very unfair and should be repealed.

I'm just saying that one reason it got voter support was that it added predictability.