|
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). |
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 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com