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.

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.

Nothing goes up forever.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
news
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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
news
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:

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
oups.com...
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?

Assessment.

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?

New owner pays the new assessed rate. It's *very* expensive to move from an
existing home because you lose the "Save Our Homes" protection.

There are a lot of folks who bought their homes on the water for $125k in
the 1960's. They're paying tax rates that are around $2-3k per year on
properties worth $1.5million. When they sell and downsize to a new condo
that they buy for $300k, their taxes *increase*. Of course, the $1.2
million that they netted from the move can pay for a whole lotta' years at
the new tax rate. ;-)

.... 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.

NOYB wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about:


Actually, I know exactly what I'm 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.


Until the town needs more new schools or a new landfill or a new water
treatment plant or it's bonds are about to get downgraded or something.

Isn't it amusing that you are determined to avoid having to pay your
fair share while urgin tremendous deficits on everybody else...


The insurance company also gets very little money from the appreciation.

The insurance company isn't taking their profit from appreciation.
They're taking it out of your wallet.

The bank sees no additional money either. The principal doesn't increase.


You have no concept of compund interest, do you?

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between your wishful thinking
& reality. No surprise considering your political views...

DSK

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.

"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.