wrote in message
oups.com...
All this mobile home stuff is extremely amusing. It says a lot about
the people who
make fun of mobile home living and mobile home dwellers.

Specifically: For the majority of Americans, the only six-figure asset
they own or will ever own is the building they live in. They laugh and
scratch with glee as "sold" signs pop up throughout their neighborhoods
and go to great lengths to confirm the rumors about the latest
astronomical selling prices.

In many middle class communities, "equities" now approach 7-figures.

OK, I'll take the bait...since you were obviously referring to me.

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.


One small problem: If the only thing of any real value you own is your
house- you don't really own anything. You have to sell your house to
get the money, and if you sell you will have to buy another that is
equally overpriced and tie your money up again.

Not true. You could rent. You could buy a boat and live on it. You could
move to an area that is the next "hot real estate market"...and use the
bank's money to buy a new home, while investing your capital gains (less
taxes) from the first house into something else.


Yipping and clapping
over the value of your home merely shows that you don't mind paying
high taxes and that you don't understand the nature of wealth.

Of course you can always free up your money by passing away.

You could reverse mortgage your house too. That is, if you really needed
the money.

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.

wrote:

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.


Ummmm -- Realtors commission, survey and other transaction expenses?

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.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
wrote:

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.


Ummmm -- Realtors commission, survey and other transaction expenses?

Assuming you can rent the properties 12 months out of the year, make the
payments on the mortgage, and pay the interest, taxes, and upkeep while you
owned them.

I can't afford to do that on my primary residence *and* and investment
property. At least not *yet*.

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.

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?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be "worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as much
or more, does not create "profit".

wrote in message
ups.com...
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?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be "worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as much
or more, does not create "profit".



Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
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?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be "worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as much
or more, does not create "profit".



Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

I wonder if he agrees with asslicker that schnapps is whiskey...........it
make as much sense.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
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?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be "worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as much
or more, does not create "profit".



Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

I wonder if he agrees with asslicker that schnapps is whiskey...........it
make as much sense.



Some folks just cannot find it in themselves to admit when they are wrong.