|
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: At least in Snellville, GA. The homes there do not sell for the high 6, low 7 figures (at least before the decimal point). First, I don't live in Snellville, GA. Secondly, the cost of living here IS much lower than a lot of places. That's a good thing. So how much does your daily purchase of a 12 pack of Bud and a can of Skoal cost you in Snellville compared to downtown Atlanta? |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... There are many, many investments that have an equal or greater return. Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. Not everyone is in Naples, FL, you dimwit!!! Now, an average increase of 17 to 36% would be all well and fine, if it were profit. It is not, and if you think it is, you are dumber than I thought. You'd be better off perpetuating lies about other people, with your buddies JimH, Fritz, and Smithers. The equity shows up as a net asset on my Personal Financial Statement. I can borrow against it. If I sell the house, it goes in my pocket. To put it simply: it's profit. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: At least in Snellville, GA. The homes there do not sell for the high 6, low 7 figures (at least before the decimal point). First, I don't live in Snellville, GA. Secondly, the cost of living here IS much lower than a lot of places. That's a good thing. So how much does your daily purchase of a 12 pack of Bud and a can of Skoal cost you in Snellville compared to downtown Atlanta? Doesn't the Skoal get under your denture and cause sores, bassie? |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... There are many, many investments that have an equal or greater return. Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. Not everyone is in Naples, FL, you dimwit!!! Now, an average increase of 17 to 36% would be all well and fine, if it were profit. OMG. I have seen everything now my Lord...you can take me anytime. He isn't the "King of the NG idiots" for nothing......... Next he will try to argue that a "return" is not profit..........not surprising for someone that thinks schnapps is whiskey.....or that you 'cow down' to someone |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... There are many, many investments that have an equal or greater return. Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. Not everyone is in Naples, FL, you dimwit!!! Now, an average increase of 17 to 36% would be all well and fine, if it were profit. It is not, and if you think it is, you are dumber than I thought. You'd be better off perpetuating lies about other people, with your buddies JimH, Fritz, and Smithers. The equity shows up as a net asset on my Personal Financial Statement. I can borrow against it. If I sell the house, it goes in my pocket. To put it simply: it's profit. Once again asslicker shows why he is the "King of the NG idiots" |
Bassie doesn't use dentures, he just gums the skoal.
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: At least in Snellville, GA. The homes there do not sell for the high 6, low 7 figures (at least before the decimal point). First, I don't live in Snellville, GA. Secondly, the cost of living here IS much lower than a lot of places. That's a good thing. So how much does your daily purchase of a 12 pack of Bud and a can of Skoal cost you in Snellville compared to downtown Atlanta? Doesn't the Skoal get under your denture and cause sores, bassie? |
P. Fritz wrote:
What other investment can be made (as an individual) for as little as 0% down, that is historically an appreciating asset, where the cost of financing (as well as taxes on it) are deductible? Chuck is sounding jealous, like a typical liebral. ************************ Your primary residence is *not* an investment. Many commercial level financial statements won't even allow you to list the equity in a primary residence. It isn't an investment because you cannot choose to do something else with the money without giving up your essential shelter. Your additional properties *are* investments, and often rather good ones. But your domicile is not an investment, no matter how much the folks who have never saved a dime or created a passive income stream wish that it were so. |
NOYB wrote:
Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. **************************** You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. If you bought a 3000 sq ft house for $350,000 ten years ago and it's now "worth" $900,000, you aren't actually any further ahead. If you sold your house for $900,000, you likely couldn't replace it with an equally large, equally nice house in a comparable neighborhood for anything less. If the house is "worth" $9 million, but you have to pay the same $9 million back out again to replace it, all you have in the end is whatever you had before (in addition to your primary residence) and a primary residence with a ridiculous valuation attached. That and a bigger property tax bill......the local assessors love those inflated real estate values. |
wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: What other investment can be made (as an individual) for as little as 0% down, that is historically an appreciating asset, where the cost of financing (as well as taxes on it) are deductible? Chuck is sounding jealous, like a typical liebral. ************************ Your primary residence is *not* an investment. Sure it is. Real estate is a common investment, including your primary residence. Many commercial level financial statements won't even allow you to list the equity in a primary residence. Commercial level...perhaps as I never applied for a commercial loan. That is not to say, however that you are right. On the residential level....bull****...they always will. Real estate is always considered part of your net worth. It isn't an investment because you cannot choose to do something else with the money without giving up your essential shelter. Sure you can. You can take the profits and move to a lesser priced dwelling. If the equity in the property you are selling is great enough then you can pay for the new property with cash. Nothing better than that, eh Chuck? Your additional properties *are* investments, and often rather good ones. But your domicile is not an investment, no matter how much the folks who have never saved a dime or created a passive income stream wish that it were so. BS. You obviously have no knowledge of real estate and investments. |
Well, in Snellville, it is probably a better investment than property.
Bill "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... At least in Snellville, GA. The homes there do not sell for the high 6, low 7 figures (at least before the decimal point). Asslicker once again fails econ 101, but when you are barely paying any income tax, like our resident "King", and buy a depreciating asset like a mobile home, a bank CD looks like a better return. So do UV lamps, cannabis seedlings, and large pots to grow 'em in...which would explain why he has spent time on the marijuana newsgroup. |
The equity shows up as a net asset on my Personal Financial Statement.
I can borrow against it. If I sell the house, it goes in my pocket. To put it simply: it's profit. ********************** If you sell the house it goes in your pocket for as long as you're happy to live in a tent, or a mobile home. :-) Fact is, unless you are willing to lower your standard of living by moving to an older, smaller home in a crappier neighborhood you will take all those sales dollars, and possibly more, to *replace* the house you just sold. Real estate is a good investment, but a primary residence is not considered investment property. |
NOYB wrote:
Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a rapidly appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment. **************************** I'm seriously surprised. Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate in addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you need), or the money tied up in it, but not both. When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should increase substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a yurt. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... There are many, many investments that have an equal or greater return. Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. Not everyone is in Naples, FL, you dimwit!!! Now, an average increase of 17 to 36% would be all well and fine, if it were profit. It is not, and if you think it is, you are dumber than I thought. You'd be better off perpetuating lies about other people, with your buddies JimH, Fritz, and Smithers. If not profit, what is it? |
Chuck,
You are incorrect. wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: What other investment can be made (as an individual) for as little as 0% down, that is historically an appreciating asset, where the cost of financing (as well as taxes on it) are deductible? Chuck is sounding jealous, like a typical liebral. ************************ Your primary residence is *not* an investment. Many commercial level financial statements won't even allow you to list the equity in a primary residence. It isn't an investment because you cannot choose to do something else with the money without giving up your essential shelter. Your additional properties *are* investments, and often rather good ones. But your domicile is not an investment, no matter how much the folks who have never saved a dime or created a passive income stream wish that it were so. |
NOYB wrote:
There is one home (out of 31 for sale in my neighborhood) under 7 figures. It's 1500 sq ft., was built in 1960, and is priced at $959k. ************ 31 homes for sale in your "neighborhood"? Either its a big neighborhood, or that full size Bush billboard in your front yard has everybody p-o'd. :-) (kidding) Illustrating my point, exactly. Lets say you paid $500,000 for you pad, and it would now sell for $1.3mm. If you sold your house for that price and needed to move to another just as nice, it would cost you $1.3mm to buy an equivalent home in the same area. Now, if you had purchased two or more homes when they were selling for $500,000 apiece- each of them beyond the one you consume each month by living in it would actually be an "investment." If you sold two investment homes corresponding to the above example you would have a gross capital gain of $1.6mm, not a bad payoff for simply sitting around cashing rent checks for a few years. |
|
But don't take too long to die, as you may be required to sell that house and spend nearly all of the proceeds on your medical care to become impoverished enough for free health care. (In that case, your heirs might sneak into the nursing home and pull the plug before you completely drain the well). Etiher that, or you could sell and move to a mobile home. :-) Reverse mortgage on the home, gift away all assets 3 years prior to medical need and then suck up the free medical when you need it! It's called estate planning. G |
Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd. wrote: Chuck, You are incorrect. In groups where serious money routinely changes hands, equity in a personal residence is not typically considered an investment asset. Example: A couple of years ago Smith Barney was offering some specialized brokerage services for those clients with net assets above $10mm. Specifically excluded from the calculations was equity in a personal residence. (Darn it all, anyway, I was only $9.99mm from the finish line before they threw that curve at me.) Do a bit of research, and you will discover that for most financial transactions beyond trying to qualify for the next overpriced property or applying for a Home Depot credit card, home equity is either not even taken into consideration or will be considered only up to a predetermined, limited percentage of overall net worth. Loans where the property will be used as collateral are going to be exceptions, of course. |
Ummmm -- Realtors commission, survey and other transaction expenses?
Reply ************* Indeed, that's why I used the term gross capital gain. It will be reduced to net by transaction expenses as well as pretty healthy bite from the tax man. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. **************************** You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. |
PS:
Even the US Census Bureau discounts home equity when calculating the average net worth of Americans. This chart is from 1995, but the principle still applies. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealt.../wlth95-9.html Example: White families in the "quintile" earning $4973 per month had an average net worth of $1.2mm, but with home equity excluded that number fell to $414k. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... P. Fritz wrote: What other investment can be made (as an individual) for as little as 0% down, that is historically an appreciating asset, where the cost of financing (as well as taxes on it) are deductible? Chuck is sounding jealous, like a typical liebral. ************************ Your primary residence is *not* an investment. Sure it is. Real estate is a common investment, including your primary residence. Many commercial level financial statements won't even allow you to list the equity in a primary residence. Commercial level...perhaps as I never applied for a commercial loan. That is not to say, however that you are right. Notice he said 'many' not all. I'm involved in a commerical deal where they looked at all of the partners assests, including everyone's primary residence. On the residential level....bull****...they always will. Real estate is always considered part of your net worth. It isn't an investment because you cannot choose to do something else with the money without giving up your essential shelter. Sure you can. You can take the profits and move to a lesser priced dwelling. If the equity in the property you are selling is great enough then you can pay for the new property with cash. Nothing better than that, eh Chuck? Your additional properties *are* investments, and often rather good ones. But your domicile is not an investment, no matter how much the folks who have never saved a dime or created a passive income stream wish that it were so. BS. You obviously have no knowledge of real estate and investments. Maybe he lives in a mobile home too. :-) The homestead is a very important investment to high liabilty professions like doctors, since it is the one asset that cannot be taken in a brankruptcy........Florida being a primary example. Anybody who thinks that your primary residence cannot be an investment is just a fool. In my younger days I doubled my net worth a couple of different times with my investment in my primary residence. |
wrote in message oups.com... Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd. wrote: Chuck, You are incorrect. In groups where serious money routinely changes hands, equity in a personal residence is not typically considered an investment asset. Example: A couple of years ago Smith Barney was offering some specialized brokerage services for those clients with net assets above $10mm. Specifically excluded from the calculations was equity in a personal residence. (Darn it all, anyway, I was only $9.99mm from the finish line before they threw that curve at me.) Do a bit of research, and you will discover that for most financial transactions beyond trying to qualify for the next overpriced property or applying for a Home Depot credit card, home equity is either not even taken into consideration or will be considered only up to a predetermined, limited percentage of overall net worth. Loans where the property will be used as collateral are going to be exceptions, of course. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000 in cash at present: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting the $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investment. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. **************************** You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Static liebral thinking wishes to ignore the fact that you have to live somewhere. Let's take a 100,000 house. You can purchase it for 0% down. The cost of the mortage, taxes etc will be about 800.00 month. The first several years will show very little prinicpal payment, so for arguements sake, will assume there is none. Someone in the 33% tax bracket will have a net cost of around 540.00 a month. Assuming a 20% increase in value after 5 years, the house is worth 120,000. So for a 0% investment, you are 20,000 ahead, while only spending 540 a month in "rent".......the 20k is also tax free, Looks like a damn good investment to me. You could NOT rent an equivalent residence for the same 540. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. |
Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely
nothing about real estate Chuck. *************** Funny, you would have thought I might have learned at least something after all these years. I've bought and sold a total dozens of investment properties since the early 70's, as well as several non investment primary residences. My primary current income is from rents and royalties. Real estate can be an *excellent* investment, but your personal house is not an investment property in the most accurate sense of the word. Even if you could sell your left leg, that wouldn't make in an "investment". You need it. Just like you need your house. If the food in your kitchen cupboards doubled in price, you wouldn't be any richer unless you could get by without eating. As soon as you sold your "appreciated" food you would need to spend an equal amount to replace it. Summing up: Real estate = investment. Primary residence= housing expense. |
wrote in message oups.com... DELTETED BY CHUCK: First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. *************** Funny, you would have thought I might have learned at least something after all these years. I've bought and sold a total dozens of investment properties since the early 70's, as well as several non investment primary residences. My primary current income is from rents and royalties. Real estate can be an *excellent* investment, but your personal house is not an investment property in the most accurate sense of the word. Even if you could sell your left leg, that wouldn't make in an "investment". You need it. Just like you need your house. If the food in your kitchen cupboards doubled in price, you wouldn't be any richer unless you could get by without eating. As soon as you sold your "appreciated" food you would need to spend an equal amount to replace it. Summing up: Real estate = investment. Primary residence= housing expense. This is ever so typical. a. You delete the majority of my reply. b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts. c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented. Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on. |
JimH wailed:
This is ever so typical. a. You delete the majority of my reply. b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts. c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented. Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on. *********** I was replying to a post that everybody following the thread had already read, once. No need to post it all again. The only aspect I was taking issue with was your nutsy statement that I don't know anything about real estate. You need to be more careful when jumping to such broad conclusions. What you should say is "you don't agree with me on this issue", not "you don't know anything about the subject". It is true that I don't agree with you on the issue, nor would most sophisticated investors agree with you. It is not true that I don't know anything about real estate. Frankly, I know one heck of a lot. How weird that you added these accusations: "b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts." There is nothing in my reply to you that is "made up". "c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented." I reposted the portions of the post that I was disputing. You can assume that I was not disputing your RE 101 lecture. How did I twist your remark that I don't know anything about real estate? Then there is this special gem: "Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on." Good thing you already expressed your disdain for people who present their opinions as if they were "facts", that will save me the trouble of doing exactly the same thing. :-) |
JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... DELTETED BY CHUCK: First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. *************** Funny, you would have thought I might have learned at least something after all these years. I've bought and sold a total dozens of investment properties since the early 70's, as well as several non investment primary residences. My primary current income is from rents and royalties. Real estate can be an *excellent* investment, but your personal house is not an investment property in the most accurate sense of the word. Even if you could sell your left leg, that wouldn't make in an "investment". You need it. Just like you need your house. If the food in your kitchen cupboards doubled in price, you wouldn't be any richer unless you could get by without eating. As soon as you sold your "appreciated" food you would need to spend an equal amount to replace it. Summing up: Real estate = investment. Primary residence= housing expense. This is ever so typical. a. You delete the majority of my reply. b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts. c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented. Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on. At least he's not a proven liar like you, Jim. It's a damned shame that you and your two circle jerk buddies have resorted to the lowest of the low, in that you choose to knowingly post lies about other people, in order to bolster your pathetic egos. |
wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... DELTETED BY CHUCK: First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. *************** Funny, you would have thought I might have learned at least something after all these years. I've bought and sold a total dozens of investment properties since the early 70's, as well as several non investment primary residences. My primary current income is from rents and royalties. Real estate can be an *excellent* investment, but your personal house is not an investment property in the most accurate sense of the word. Even if you could sell your left leg, that wouldn't make in an "investment". You need it. Just like you need your house. If the food in your kitchen cupboards doubled in price, you wouldn't be any richer unless you could get by without eating. As soon as you sold your "appreciated" food you would need to spend an equal amount to replace it. Summing up: Real estate = investment. Primary residence= housing expense. This is ever so typical. a. You delete the majority of my reply. b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts. c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented. Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on. At least he's not a proven liar like you, Jim. It's a damned shame that you and your two circle jerk buddies have resorted to the lowest of the low, in that you choose to knowingly post lies about other people, in order to bolster your pathetic egos. Glad to see you survived your week in detox ok. How is your marijuana crop this year? |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. **************************** You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. If you bought a 3000 sq ft house for $350,000 ten years ago and it's now "worth" $900,000, you aren't actually any further ahead. If you sold your house for $900,000, you likely couldn't replace it with an equally large, equally nice house in a comparable neighborhood for anything less. If the house is "worth" $9 million, but you have to pay the same $9 million back out again to replace it, all you have in the end is whatever you had before (in addition to your primary residence) and a primary residence with a ridiculous valuation attached. That and a bigger property tax bill......the local assessors love those inflated real estate values. Thanks to "Save our Homes", our property taxes are capped at a maximum 3% increase per year. I'm just happy that I have a lot of additional equity to tap into. Within a year, I'll be debt free (get rid of the school loan and business loan). That is...except for the million I owe on the house. ;-) That's good debt though: Tax write-off. Appreciating asset. Safe investment. Homesteaded (protected asset). |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. We already had this discussion, didn't we? A house is not an investment instrument. The fact that house prices have gone up steadily over the past 10 ~ 15 years in most areas, and astronomically in a few, is no indication that a house should be considered a bankable financial return. wrote: You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. If you bought a 3000 sq ft house for $350,000 ten years ago and it's now "worth" $900,000, you aren't actually any further ahead. If you sold your house for $900,000, you likely couldn't replace it with an equally large, equally nice house in a comparable neighborhood for anything less. If the house is "worth" $9 million, but you have to pay the same $9 million back out again to replace it, all you have in the end is whatever you had before (in addition to your primary residence) and a primary residence with a ridiculous valuation attached. That and a bigger property tax bill......the local assessors love those inflated real estate values. Yep. Them's the facts. Another issue is a little more basic... no single commodity outstrips the background rate of inflation in the long run. None.... never... and part of why is that every commodity which increases in value contributes to increased inflation. The fact that housing prices in NOYB's neighborhood have gone up so much for so long ought to be a warning sign to long term homeowners in that neighborhood to sell & take the money while they can get it. NOYB is playing a sucker bet, to the sure profit of the bank, the insurance co, & his local tax collector... leaving him holding the risk and an uncertain gain. You don't know what you're talking about: The tax collector sees very little additional income from the rapid appreciation. "Save Our Homes" ensures that the rate can't go up more than 3% per year. The insurance company also gets very little money from the appreciation. They're insuring the structure...not the land. The value is in the land. The bank sees no additional money either. The principal doesn't increase. |
JimH wrote: wrote in message ups.com... JimH wrote: wrote in message oups.com... DELTETED BY CHUCK: First of all, the quality of your argument is diminished with your childess munipulation of the name of the city of Naples. It is Naples, not Nipples. Grow up Chuck. Secondly, you have to look at the end result of the real estate process. Let us compare owning vs. renting. Example (real life) I have $30,000: EXAMPLE 1: If purchasing a house: I buy a 4 bedroom house for $150,000, putting $30,000 down. I owe the bank $120,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $250,000, yielding $75,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My initial investment was $30,000. I now have $75,000. I then buy a house for $350,000, putting the entire $75,000 down. I owe the bank $275,000 and I put nothing into the house over the years I own it other than the mortgage payment. I then sell that house for $450,000, yielding $133,000 net after commision, payments to the bank and expenses. My intial investment was $30,000. I now have $133,000 I downsize and look back at that $150,000 starter home I once owned. It is now selling for $300,000. I buy it, put down my $133,000 in down payment and thus owe the bank $167,000. I eventually sell the house and move into a retirement community (paid for by my insurance). The house sells for $325,000. After expenses and commisions I net $155,000. My initial investment was $30,000. I yielded a net profit of $125,000 on a $30,000 investment, *and* I had ZERO living expenses over all those years. EXAMPLE 2: If renting a house/apartment: A $30,000 investment over 30 years at at 5% rate of return would yield a return of $130,000. With an average cost of rental housing over 30 years for a 4 bedroom apartment @ $000/month (a very low average) of $180,000, I yield a a net loss of -$50,000. Compare to that the ownership scenario and realize almost a $1000,000 return. RESULTS: A net profit of $100,000 to own. A net loss of $50,000 to rent. The difference....$150,000 over 30 years on a $30,000 ownership investmet. My scenarios were very conservative. Real estate is not an investment? Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about real estate Chuck. *************** Funny, you would have thought I might have learned at least something after all these years. I've bought and sold a total dozens of investment properties since the early 70's, as well as several non investment primary residences. My primary current income is from rents and royalties. Real estate can be an *excellent* investment, but your personal house is not an investment property in the most accurate sense of the word. Even if you could sell your left leg, that wouldn't make in an "investment". You need it. Just like you need your house. If the food in your kitchen cupboards doubled in price, you wouldn't be any richer unless you could get by without eating. As soon as you sold your "appreciated" food you would need to spend an equal amount to replace it. Summing up: Real estate = investment. Primary residence= housing expense. This is ever so typical. a. You delete the majority of my reply. b. You make up things and present them as facts, then surround your entire argument around those made up *facts. c. You delete sections of the post you respond to then twist the facts as they were originally presented. Dispute the facts all you want Chuck. The facts show that you are wrong. BTW: Get over it, stop whining and move on. At least he's not a proven liar like you, Jim. It's a damned shame that you and your two circle jerk buddies have resorted to the lowest of the low, in that you choose to knowingly post lies about other people, in order to bolster your pathetic egos. Glad to see you survived your week in detox ok. Yet another lie from JimH. The most prolific liar on usenet. Please show what you know about me EVER being "in detox". What a good for nothing ****ing liar you are. How is your marijuana crop this year? What "marijuana crop", Jim? Please show any evidence you have that I have one. Another ****ing lie, from the ****ing liar. What a nasty little piglet you are. By the way, my wife's doing fine, and she likes to go fishing with me on my boat. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. We already had this discussion, didn't we? A house is not an investment instrument. The fact that house prices have gone up steadily over the past 10 ~ 15 years in most areas, and astronomically in a few, is no indication that a house should be considered a bankable financial return. wrote: You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. If you bought a 3000 sq ft house for $350,000 ten years ago and it's now "worth" $900,000, you aren't actually any further ahead. If you sold your house for $900,000, you likely couldn't replace it with an equally large, equally nice house in a comparable neighborhood for anything less. If the house is "worth" $9 million, but you have to pay the same $9 million back out again to replace it, all you have in the end is whatever you had before (in addition to your primary residence) and a primary residence with a ridiculous valuation attached. That and a bigger property tax bill......the local assessors love those inflated real estate values. Yep. Them's the facts. Another issue is a little more basic... no single commodity outstrips the background rate of inflation in the long run. None.... never... and part of why is that every commodity which increases in value contributes to increased inflation. The fact that housing prices in NOYB's neighborhood have gone up so much for so long ought to be a warning sign to long term homeowners in that neighborhood to sell & take the money while they can get it. NOYB is playing a sucker bet, to the sure profit of the bank, the insurance co, & his local tax collector... leaving him holding the risk and an uncertain gain. You don't know what you're talking about: The tax collector sees very little additional income from the rapid appreciation. "Save Our Homes" ensures that the rate can't go up more than 3% per year. The insurance company also gets very little money from the appreciation. They're insuring the structure...not the land. The value is in the land. The bank sees no additional money either. The principal doesn't increase. It is comical to see all these liebral continue to insist that a primary residence cannot be an investment........reminds me of asslicker's insistance that schnapps is whiskey. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Housing prices have averaged an increase of 17-26% in Naples over the last 6 years. Name a single investment that offered equal or greater return, with the same level of risk, *and* a tax deduction. **************************** You've almost got it, Doc. The price of housing, expressed in dollars, has increased 17-26% for the last 6 years. The owner of a single family home in Nipples is no better off, however, unless he also owns additional property that he doesn't need to *consume* in its entirety every month. If you bought a 3000 sq ft house for $350,000 ten years ago and it's now "worth" $900,000, you aren't actually any further ahead. If you sold your house for $900,000, you likely couldn't replace it with an equally large, equally nice house in a comparable neighborhood for anything less. If the house is "worth" $9 million, but you have to pay the same $9 million back out again to replace it, all you have in the end is whatever you had before (in addition to your primary residence) and a primary residence with a ridiculous valuation attached. That and a bigger property tax bill......the local assessors love those inflated real estate values. Thanks to "Save our Homes", our property taxes are capped at a maximum 3% increase per year. I'm just happy that I have a lot of additional equity to tap into. Within a year, I'll be debt free (get rid of the school loan and business loan). That is...except for the million I owe on the house. ;-) That's good debt though: Tax write-off. Appreciating asset. Safe investment. Homesteaded (protected asset). And the chunk of capital gains that is tax free.....can't remember if it is the first 150k or 250k. And they still ignore the fact that you have a housing 'expense' regardless. Two identical houses side by side, one person is renting, the other has invested and is buying......guess who will come out ahead. |
wrote in message ups.com... PS: Even the US Census Bureau discounts home equity when calculating the average net worth of Americans. This chart is from 1995, but the principle still applies. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealt.../wlth95-9.html Example: White families in the "quintile" earning $4973 per month had an average net worth of $1.2mm, but with home equity excluded that number fell to $414k. I think you're off by a factor of 10. The median household net worth for households in the top quintile was $185,500 in 2000...and that *includes* home equity: "This report compares the levels of wealth and asset ownership, such as equity in a home, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, vehicle ownership, and mutual funds, with various socioeconomic factors, including monthly household income, in late 1997 and early 1998, and in late 1999 and early 2000" http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf |
NOYB wrote:
The tax collector sees very little additional income from the rapid appreciation. "Save Our Homes" ensures that the rate can't go up more than 3% per year. ************************** That's a local program, not a general economic situation. Does the 3% limit millage, assessment, or total tax bill? When the house sells, does your program carry forward based on the taxes paid by the previous owner (who purchased at a lower price) or does it extend to the new owner who is usually replacing his previous residence with something carrying an even higher price tag? |
wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a rapidly appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment. **************************** I'm seriously surprised. Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate in addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you need), or the money tied up in it, but not both. When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should increase substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a yurt. But a really, really nice yurt. Of course, I could retire to Snellville, buy an entire trailer park, and still put a million in my pocket. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a rapidly appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment. **************************** I'm seriously surprised. Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate in addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you need), or the money tied up in it, but not both. When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should increase substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a yurt. But a really, really nice yurt. Of course, I could retire to Snellville, buy an entire trailer park, and still put a million in my pocket. I'm really beginning to wonder about some people. An increse in net worth is an increase in net worth. You will have a housing expense whether you rent or invest in a residence. The tax law allows you to invest in a better space than you could rent for the same net cost. Your equity is protected from brankruptcy judgement, The first (150k -250k) capital gains is typically tax free. Damn good investment to me. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: There is one home (out of 31 for sale in my neighborhood) under 7 figures. It's 1500 sq ft., was built in 1960, and is priced at $959k. ************ 31 homes for sale in your "neighborhood"? Either its a big neighborhood, or that full size Bush billboard in your front yard has everybody p-o'd. :-) (kidding) Illustrating my point, exactly. Lets say you paid $500,000 for you pad, and it would now sell for $1.3mm. If you sold your house for that price and needed to move to another just as nice, it would cost you $1.3mm to buy an equivalent home in the same area. Here's the real life example: I paid $825k for the current home on the water. The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m. After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water) The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k. If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be in it for under $650. So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current home and bought my old one again. That's profit, right? I could always sell my house and move a little bit inland...and make a huge profit in the process. Or I could move to Lee County instead of Collier County. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com