"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