invite response« First « Previous Comments 202 - 221 of 221 Search these comments
B.A.C.A.H.
2007 Mar 11, 7:24am
Jimbo,
If Obama gets elected, they will try to undermine him with a scandal. If the scandal doesn't do him in, I'm afraid that he'll be the 5th U.S. President to be assassinated in office.
OpinionsPlease Says:
> Quick question for anybody who knows. I heard that
> deductions on rental property phase out after you make
> something like $150,000? But is that entirely true?
It is partially true. Anyone can deduct all rental property expenses (passive expenses) against all rental property income (passive income). There is a way that people who “Actively Manage†investment property but don’t make much of a salary (less than $150K) can reduce their taxable income (people that make a lot of money can just carry the passive loss forward).
> Let’s say you are buying a 3rd property as a vacation or
> rental home. On one’s taxes, can you treat it as a business?
Yes, but if you treat it as a “business†you will need to prove to the IRS that you have a plan to make money (most people just cash the vacation rent checks and don’t mention the renal income to the IRS). It is actually legal to rent a home for up to 2 weeks a year and not declare any of the income (as long as you don’t deduct any expenses).
> i.e. it costs $45,000/own through interest, HOAs, and property
> taxes…. and if you only bring in say $25,000, you can reduce
> your taxable income by $20,000 no matter what your income
> is since it’s treated as a business?
If you rent the place for 100 days at $250 a night and bring in $25K you will be safe telling the IRS that your net income is only $12,671 (before 100 days of depreciation and other expenses related to renting the place) since at $45K a year your expenses are $123 a night. It you want to claim more expenses you will need to prove that you were 1. not using the place and 2. actively trying to rent it…
OP: Don't know the answer to your question. I'm sure many people enjoyed the beautiful day. Have you played poker with the boys recently?
OT - just read this while looking for rental properties in Mountain View - what a deal - not!
"my house is currently on the market for sale, because the housing market
is very slow right now, and I haven't found a buyer yet, so I put it for rent;
if you rent my house, you also agree that you will let my agent show
the house to protential buyer when it needed.
asking $2300.00/mth +deposit+ credit check. "
But it is encouraging to know that Mountain View IS being affected and we ARE NOT special!
"The Repos have learned to spend better than any Demo. "
Bap33,
Look at what the current Republican administration has done to domestic spending and to the national debt and the national deficit. There is a higher percentage of people receiving financial assistance than at any previous time (this after Republican control of all three branches of government for years). You have been hoodwinked.
These guys are in no way fiscal conservatives, they are massive, massive spenders. Bill Clinton looks like the most astounding, amazing fiscal conservative compared to the current administration. Take your blinders off, this administration has all of the fiscal restraint of a pack of drunken sailors with somebody else's credit card. They'll be long out of town and the damage done by the time the bill comes in.
"Buying a Camry would probably prove you have renounced all desires…"
Except the desire for decades of hassle free, low cost ownership :)
B.A.C.A.H.
2007 Mar 11, 9:13am
Lexus is a fashion statement.
Camry, built by Americans somewhere in the midwest, is a good value.
sfbubblebuyer
2007 Mar 11, 9:41am
SFWoman,
I believe he was implying that Republicans are now as financially irresponsible as any democrat you'd care to point to.
I assume true Buddhists walk everywhere...mindfully...
Tantric Buddhists can fly...
This piece is on the front page of the Sunday New York Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/11mortgage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
A login password is needed. An excerpt is below. As usual, the NYT is a day late and a dollar short, but it is on the front page...
"Crisis Looms in Market for Mortgages "
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: March 11, 2007
On March 1, a Wall Street analyst at Bear Stearns wrote an upbeat report on a company that specializes in making mortgages to cash-poor homebuyers. The company, New Century Financial, had already disclosed that a growing number of borrowers were defaulting, and its stock, at around $15, had lost half its value in three weeks.
A Booming Market What happened next seems all too familiar to investors who bought technology stocks in 2000 at the breathless urging of Wall Street analysts. Last week, New Century said it would stop making loans and needed emergency financing to survive. The stock collapsed to $3.21.
The analyst’s untimely call, coupled with a failure among other Wall Street institutions to identify problems in the home mortgage market, isn’t the only familiar ring to investors who watched the technology stock bubble burst precisely seven years ago.
Now, as then, Wall Street firms and entrepreneurs made fortunes issuing questionable securities, in this case pools of home loans taken out by risky borrowers. Now, as then, bullish stock and credit analysts for some of those same Wall Street firms, which profited in the underwriting and rating of those investments, lulled investors with upbeat pronouncements even as loan defaults ballooned. Now, as then, regulators stood by as the mania churned, fed by lax standards and anything-goes lending.
Investment manias are nothing new, of course. But the demise of this one has been broadly viewed as troubling, as it involves the nation’s $6.5 trillion mortgage securities market, which is larger even than the United States treasury market.
Hanging in the balance is the nation’s housing market, which has been a big driver of the economy. Fewer lenders means many potential homebuyers will find it more difficult to get credit, while hundreds of thousands of homes will go up for sale as borrowers default, further swamping a stalled market.
(continues)
Of course,
Brand,
The Yahoo article is written by fools, as you say. For Boston they mention Dorchester as an up and coming neighborhood. One of my friends rented an apartment in Dorchester for a while. He works for a federal agency that involves him carrying a gun, so let's just say he's not the type to shy away from a bad area. Well, after a year there he moved because it was too dangerous. When he would go for a jog (in plainclothes), the locals would tell him to "keep running, boy". And not in a friendly way either.
Peter P
2007 Mar 11, 4:07pm
Driving a premium car CAN be a fashion statement.
I think being driven in a true luxury car (e.g. RR, Bentley) can be a fashion statement.
Too many people are driving Lexus for it to be a "statement". :)
Peter P,
Numbers never stopped the SUV drivers or the BMW 3 series crowd (though some of them might have bought them just for the car).
Peter P
2007 Mar 12, 2:33am
Unless the statement is “I am part of an original crowd.â€
That is an such a non-statement. :)
Malcolm
2007 Mar 12, 11:54pm
'Too many people are driving Lexus for it to be a “statementâ€. '
A Prius makes a more noticeable statement than a Lexus.
People driving around in overpriced American luxury SUVs like Hummers, and Yukons now look like utter morons. Especially when you know that they used a HELOC to buy it. Ha ha ha ha ha.
« First « Previous Comments 202 - 221 of 221 Search these comments
Most of the posts here tend to pretty much revolve around posting housing/economic news stats, debunking REIC propaganda, ranting about the NAR/Fed, sharing stories, parodying ignorant FBs, etc. This time, I have a genuine mystery for you to help solve.
A recent San Francisco Chronicle article, "ECONOMIC DEEP FREEZE
January cold spell inflicts hardship on the state's citrus workers" contained the following excerpt:
Ok, now here are the facts:
Yet...
I really need your help here, because I just can't seem to reconcile the first two statements with the last two. From 1995 to 2007, house prices throughout virtually every part of California have at least tripled. So, even assuming Mr. Galindo took out an interest-only loan back in 1995 (not likely, as they were very rare back then), he must have at least 66.67% equity in his home by now, right? And if he has been more-or-less continuously employed since 1992 (with a very, very low housing cost basis), then how could he have almost zero savings? Even with the wife + 3 kids and assuming his job is of the low-skill/low-pay fruit-picking variety, and that his wife never works, this all seems somewhat hard to understand.
Has Mr. Galindo cash-out refinanced his house each year since 1995 and used the money to take his family on annual round-the-world luxury cruises? Has his family dined exclusively on Chateaubriand, Maine lobster, pâté de foie gras, Italian black truffles, Kobe beef and Dom Perignon for the last 12 years? Is he single-handedly putting "Kitty", "Amber" and "Bambi" at the local gentleman's club through college?
Unfortunately, this mystery is beyond my limited amateur-sleuth abilities to solve. Please help me out here.
Thanks,
HARM
#housing