patrick.net reality parser Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:41:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 en /forum/?p=525682 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:10:22 +0000 cab /forum/?p=525682

Recent Comments

• xlr8 says: Patrick says OK, here’s the Concord graph. Don’t worry too much about that last point that’s so low. There’s not much data for that day. But hey, subscribe to my Property Finder and get all this data for free! (For a month. After that, well, I charge $47/month if you haven’t cancelled by then.) Patrick, How far back does your Property finder data goes?...
• xlr8 says: Patrick says OK, here’s the Concord graph. Don’t worry too much about that last point that’s so low. There’s not much data for that day. But hey, subscribe to my Property Finder and get all this data for free! (For a month. After that, well, I charge $47/month if you haven’t cancelled by then.) Patrick, How far back does your historical data in Property finder goes?...
• Misstrial says: I agree with Vain above @1. In addition, many many landlords heloc'd their rental properties just like residential homeowners did during the run-up. The loans terms are coming due and it doesn't look good for them. Any landlord that *has* to raise their rents in this present economy is financially distressed. ~Misstrial...

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=525682 /forum/?p=516516 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:36:58 +0000 RayAmerica /forum/?p=516516

Recent Comments

• Kevin says: iwog says It seems that it’s not only the super-rich that pay an average of 17% in taxes, it’s also the largest corporations on the planet that pay about the same amount. Don’t you think that’s the main point???? A fricken nurse who works 60 hours a week and cleans bedpans has 50% taken away while Paris Hilton might pay 15% if she’s REALLY generous? That 50% figure sounds like bullshit. First, nurses generally don't clean bedpans. That's what an orderly does. An orderly in "expensive" CA is going to make about $50k a year. Assuming the orderly takes the standard deduction, is single, no kids, etc., you're looking at $5950 in federal income tax, $2505 to CA, $3125 SS, $875 medicare All in, $12,455 in taxes for the year, or about 25%. Most people are paying a lot less, because they have deductions. My federal tax liability for this year is going to be around 12%. Social security will be around 5%, 1.75% for medicare, and I pay no state taxes. All told, we're looking at maybe 19% total, on an income of around $260k. If I lived in CA it'd be close to 30%. Certainly nothing close to 50%. So, no, it isn't "just" the super rich paying low taxes. Frankly, I'd be shocked if anyone actually was legitimately paying 50% in taxes. That would require that you: 1. Be making in excess of $400k a year. 2. Be living in a state with a very high income tax rate (CA, NJ come to mind) 3. Have virtually no deductions. I submit that this just doesn't happen, because nobody stupid enough to wind up in such a situation is smart enough to land a job that pays so well. To make that much money, you're going to need to be some sort of mid level manager (think director or VP) at a decent size company, a surgeon, a lawyer, or a moderately successful small business owner. It's incredibly rare to achieve that level of success while being too stupid to at least max out your 401k....
• Nomograph says: iwog says Paris Hilton might pay 15% if she’s REALLY generous? Paris Hilton is blonde, promiscuous, is a heavy drinker and drug user, and once had a reality show. If anything, the government should be paying her, not the other way around....
• iwog says: bob2356 says Your are correct. I meant to type 66% and didn’t proofread. I posted no link. I am STILL waiting for an explanation of why you would use such a totally bs factoid as the basis for your arguments. Are you angling for the position of RayAmerica’s liberal alter ego? First of all, I already said you were correct and since you linked the study AND talked about the content, I don't see why it's necessary for me to explain anything. Secondly the report on corporate taxes is certainly NOT the basis for my arguments. You failed to mention that while 66% of corporations failed to pay any taxes at least 1 year during the study period, FAR MORE corporations paid extremely small tax bills in relation to their size and profits. I'll repost this article from Multinational: Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes. But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less. In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS. Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003. It seems that it's not only the super-rich that pay an average of 17% in taxes, it's also the largest corporations on the planet that pay about the same amount. Don't you think that's the main point???? A fricken nurse who works 60 hours a week and cleans bedpans has 50% taken away while Paris Hilton might pay 15% if she's REALLY generous? How can you not be outraged by this?...

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=516516 /forum/?p=522994 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:00:46 +0000 RayAmerica /forum/?p=522994

Recent Comments

• Kevin says: Bap33 says anyone not conservative might be called liberal, and vise versa. No, it's a continuum, like most things. anyone not called poor might be called rich, and vice versa. No, it's a continuum, like most things. anyone not called uneducated might be called educated, and vice versa. No, it's a continuum, like most things. anyone not called old might be called young, and vice versa. No, it's a continuum, like most things. anyone not using the internet might be called a non-user of the internet, and vice versa. Hey, you got one right! Not all conservatives are poor, uneducated, or old. Not all old, poor, or uneducated people are conservative. But poor, uneducated, and old people do lean strongly towards conservative ideals, and do use the internet less than people who are financially stable, are more educated, or are on the younger side. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate this, and it shouldn't be surprising -- there's a standard curve of technological adoption that has been demonstrated throughout history, and it goes something like this: - Younger people are more willing to try new things. - Wealthier people are willing to try new things. - Educated people are willing to try new things. Liberalism, by definition, is accepting of new things....
• marcus says: Bap33 says This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all. Of the three groups, older people do tend to be less likely to be online (than average) and also more likely to be conservative than average. Whereas the other two groups are probably online a little less, but not necessarily disproportionately conservative. To say that older people, say over 63 tend to be significantly more conservative as voters than average voters under 63, is not equivalent to saying that liberals are younger than conservatives (more of a generalization). Obviously there exists 100 year old liberals, and a 21 year old conservatives to contradict that. It might be equivalent to saying that voters 63 and under are more likely to be liberal than average voters over 63, or just more liberal than average. Older voters are not only disproportionately conservative, but they also tend to vote. They probably are also more likely to participate in online discussions (not at social networking sites that is) than the typical younger person, that is if they are online. Cancelling out some of the effect. Way too much analysis ? I think that there are plenty of sites and blogs that are dominated by conservatives. Maybe this one isn't in part because it's "owner" has expressed at least a relatively left of center view on some topics. Maybe also because they don't want the flack from people here (especially Nomo today) that will bust them on bs reasoning....
• Bap33 says: Kevin says Bap33 says Kevin says Demographically speaking the internet in general is more liberal than the real world. This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all. Particularly older people. is it fair to say that this statement says that liberals are richer, more educated, and younger than conservos? No, it says that poor, uneducated, and old people tend to be conservative. Even the ones who vote for democrats. hmmm ... anyone not conservative might be called liberal, and vise versa. anyone not called poor might be called rich, and vice versa. anyone not called uneducated might be called educated, and vice versa. anyone not called old might be called young, and vice versa. anyone not using the internet might be called a non-user of the internet, and vice versa. and so you wrote, "Demographically speaking the internet in general is more liberal than the real world. This is because poor, uneducated, and old people use the internet less or not at all." Since your answer was to my question about the type of folks that make up most of the on-line population, I think your position (and view of non-liberal posters) is very clear. I'm not challenging your position....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=522994 /forum/?p=365682 Fri, 21 May 2010 08:52:58 +0000

Recent Comments

• ptiemann says: thomas.wong1986 says E-man says Home was sold for $250k all cash. Agent was not lying to me. Good deal if it were an owner-oc. Yes its a better deal at $250K and certain to revalue comps on future sales accordingly. I don't think so. The MLS will contain the death issue under agent remarks. And (currently) $300k is kind of a bottom for 3-br homes in San Jose as the mortgage payment is equal or lower than comparable rent at that point. A property will sell for less than 300k only if there's some defect (location, condition, etc)...
• thomas.wong1986 says: E-man says Home was sold for $250k all cash. Agent was not lying to me. Good deal if it were an owner-oc. Yes its a better deal at $250K and certain to revalue comps on future sales accordingly....
• ptiemann says: Vain says Owner died in house 2008 you only need to disclose the death if it happened within the past 3 years. I guess they did not want to wait the 3rd year....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=365682 /forum/?p=525292 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:52:08 +0000 woggs1 /forum/?p=525292

Recent Comments

• Austinhousingbubble says: The fuss is about WHO is going to PAY for the losses. Why do people not understand that? If we “print” 4T in new currency then WE ALL pay for the losses, not the banks. I thought my flippancy would be obvious. Still, your above remark seems to suggest WE aren't paying for the losses. Under current housing policy, it's the banks and the speculators that are being buffered from the losses realized by the housing correction. Indeed, every whiz-bang policy measure or emergency relief program thus devised has been a back-door bailout or stopgap for the banks. I just can't see how it would it prove more injurious to the taxpayer if the Fed were to stop manipulating the residential real estate market and force the banks to realize the losses on their balance sheets. Conversely, I can easily think of several good reasons why this would be the better scenario. BTW if you're still depositing your money into a commercial bank account, you should be horsewhipped...as in whipped with a horse. ...
• StillLooking says: justme says Austinhousingbubble says Exactly. I don’t get what all the fuss is about. Just move some decimals around. The fuss is about WHO is going to PAY for the losses. Why do people not understand that? If we “print” 4T in new currency then WE ALL pay for the losses, not the banks. Actually it makes certain that people that save money in government insured accounts don't lose. Any other scheme cheats the savers. Why do you want to cheat those that save their money in the banks out of their money or the value of their money?...
• justme says: Austinhousingbubble says Exactly. I don’t get what all the fuss is about. Just move some decimals around. The fuss is about WHO is going to PAY for the losses. Why do people not understand that? If we "print" 4T in new currency then WE ALL pay for the losses, not the banks....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=525292 /forum/?p=471990 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:13:13 +0000

Recent Comments

• SF ace says: pkennedy, REIT formation is pretty complicated due to the shareholder threshold and distibution requirement. I think the best way to start a REIT is to form a limited partnership with the partners you trust. I have been kicking around some ideas to form a partnership for this purpose as well. It will be great to get partners who specialize in each area: 1) rental management 2) contractors to fix and maintain 3) accounting, tax and finance 4) real estate agent and attorney This is to leverage individual expertise to create business for the partners as well as cover the most of the expenses of the partnership....
• pkennedy says: @e-man You'll eventually come in here, I'm sure... I was talking to Patrick and discussing buying options involving friends, and he mentioned that REIT's are exactly what I was talking about. I had never actually looked at a REIT, I thought they were public entities primarily for those large apartment management companies, but they seem like they're a pretty doable option for a moderate sized group of people. The 100 person limit is a little daunting, but it doesn't seem totally impossible to find 100 investors to start a REIT. Especially on a site like this, where there are so many rational, well paid people (minus the nut cases), who want to invest in housing, but not in over priced housing either, and wish they could purchase these cheap cash only deals. It seems that right now would be a good time to start one? Even a moderately funded one, 100 people paying 5K-10K each would be a decent starting point. Raise money every 6 months or so, purchase a couple rentals per year. With cash buying and the right person finding the best properties, it seems like a pretty decent business. We hear about homes going to the court house steps, but no one has the funds necessary to buy them, but the REIT would. I'm guessing 2-4 properties per year? It would be more of a mini REIT, with essentially no over head. I was thinking along the lines of 2-4 people could just keep the units rented. At least for the first year or two. After that, an off-site manager could take care of all these aspects. What are your thoughts on them? How complex would they be to setup and manage? Is this a doable project?...
• Patrick says: Excellent example of how bad the deals still are for buyers in Silicon Valley. The choice: A) I could spend a million dollars. B) I could rent it for 3.6% of that. Same area, same school district, hell, the same exact house. Should I save a few thousand dollars every month, and protect myself from falling prices at the same time, or should I spend far more money to live in the same house, and risk falling prices, bankruptcy, and foreclosure? We are still clearly in a massive bubble around here....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=471990 /forum/?p=518948 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:00:19 +0000 errc /forum/?p=518948

Recent Comments

• suds says: Instead of using rules of thumb and opinion, please visit www.mtgprofessor.com and learn everything you need to know about refinancing decisions, along with accurate calculators for YOUR situation....
• OCExRenter says: SF ace says OCExRenter says If i’m able to refi at 4% or under it’s worth it to me; I am at 5% right now. I am planning on staying in my house long term so the $150-$200/mo savings from the 1% drop will be nice. while your overall mortgage may be 150-200 less, your interest is probably 200-260 less, making the principle reduction accelerated as well. The point is don’t just compare the mortgage, look into the interest and principle component as well. The best part is I will keep paying what I currently am and pay it off even quicker (I pay bi-weekly)...
• SF ace says: OCExRenter says If i’m able to refi at 4% or under it’s worth it to me; I am at 5% right now. I am planning on staying in my house long term so the $150-$200/mo savings from the 1% drop will be nice. while your overall mortgage may be 150-200 less, your interest is probably 200-260 less, making the principle reduction accelerated as well. The point is don't just compare the mortgage, look into the interest and principle component as well....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=518948 /forum/?p=523915 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:44:33 +0000 RayAmerica /forum/?p=523915

Recent Comments

• marcus says: My apologies if I already shared that quote before. It just seems so fitting. I forget whether it was Ray or Abe, but I now recall that they came back with something like, "oh I have my doubts alright, about our government, and about the Federal reserve, about Obama" or something along those lines. In other words the quote wasn't actually even understood. IT's about doubting yourself Abe, which believe it or not, is an intelligent and wise thing to do every now and then. Maybe if you can't do that, you could understand what a fool you appear to be, and so in the interest of at least appearing like a humble and wise person you could act like you didn't have all the answers....
• marcus says: Bap33 says Anything else is total crap I agree. Certainly doesn't seem fair. But if the bank can come out better, and the home owner too, and the house doesn't go vacant, which is bad for the neighborhood, who can blame them. It comes down to a business decision. Although the federal subsidy of it, that goes to the banks, does seem wrong. (haven't kept up with how much of that has actually occurred) Then again, I am renting and waiting to buy (effectively "short" real estate), so I have a bias toward letting the market do it's thing for reasons that include my own self interest....
• marcus says: Abe seems to have all the answers. Where as more intelligent folk are happy just trying to comprehend what the most important questions are. Here I go with another Bertrand Russell quote especially for Abe: The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. ...

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=523915 /forum/?p=525599 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:41:03 +0000 burritos /forum/?p=525599

Recent Comments

• iwog says: Current rates are a reflection of demand for dollars, government participation, and normal market cycles. The latest dip in interest rates was caused by worry that the United States economy would double-dip back into recession. The stock market fell, and cash went to bonds which are considered the safest investment in the world. Near the end of last week we got some good economic data. Money left bonds, interest rates went up, and the stock market rose. Last year the federal government was engaged in Quantitative Easing. This is where the federal reserve buys bonds directly and drives the price higher. Higher bond price means lower interest rates. They ended this policy in 2009 although they have recently decided to roll over any redemption money back into new bonds and hold approximately $2 trillion in bond assets. Should the fed divest themselves of this $2 trillion, it would drive bond prices lower and interest rates higher. By staying pat, they avoid this effect. Your broker was either talking about last year's direct QE, or he was talking about the latest decision to roll over debt and hold at $2 trillion neither is having much effect on the current bond market. Lastly, the bond market is subject to speculation and investment like any other market. Traders buy and sell bonds daily. The market moves on rumors and news just like the stock market. Currently the United States bond market is artificially high because the crisis in Europe moved a lot of money to the dollar which must be held in a safe asset and that is usually Treasury bonds. Interest rates are also dependent on which countries are buying our debt. China quit for a few months early in the year which pushed rates higher. China recently resumed buying bonds which helped send rates lower. It's a complex market but there's one thing everyone should remember. The bond market (and therefore interest rates) are very much at the whim of investors. It is absolutely possible for rates to move 3% in a single month should some crisis emerge. Rates have changed at a snail's pace in recent years, but that hasn't always been true....
• Bap33 says: Nomograph says HINT: the terms ‘broker’ and ‘agent’ are synonymous with ’salesperson’. Caveat emptor. excellant post Doc....
• Nomograph says: MarkInSF says your mortgage broker is wrong. My experience has been that mortgage brokers are about as knowledgeable as RE agents. I use them to push paperwork. I do not use them as a source of credible market analysis. HINT: the terms 'broker' and 'agent' are synonymous with 'salesperson'. Caveat emptor....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=525599 /forum/?p=518954 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:26:45 +0000 TechGromit /forum/?p=518954

Recent Comments

• Chuckie13 says: What is the TRUE BACKLOG of inventory and how long would it take to sell if we counted all the "held back" and soon to be held back homes? Lets say the latest rate of sales stays and becomes the NEW normal. As so many are credit impaired, and or with out solid incomes. I am having real trouble seeing any optimism, when you add up all the people UNABLE (credit impaired) UNABLE TO BUY: vs. able to buy (but don;t already own) as move needs new entry level buyers and they are all but gone. How can those of you that positive on housing have that view? please help me see it....
• sy says: A thought, could the law change to make foreclosures an unappealing alternative and instead force banks to offer multi-generational loan products? All in the name of community stabilization....
• MarkInSF says: You don't get it. There is no such thing as a "bank". There are people that work as executives at banks that are working in their own best interest And that means keeping the stock valuation of the companies they work for as high as possible long enough to cash out their incentive stock grants. If it all crashes and burns after that, fine. Their interests are not in alignment with the "bank". This conflict has been recorded over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over in history, and amazingly people still don't get it. Even Mr. Greenspan was dumbstruck but finally got it....

]]> /forum/?feed=rss2&p=518954