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?