If there is anything truly unique about this housing bubble, it's the amount of information that is available to all of us who are interested.
Patrick.net posts links to news sites daily that gives us details on virtually anything any of us want to know about the bubble in our hometown.
This blog allows us to compare news and trade ideas on how fast/slow the bubble is bursting.
How do you think this incredible access to information is going to change how this housing bubble bursts? Is this bubble going to be less "sticky" on the way down because the average homebuyer will have quicker access to all the relevant data?
What do you think?
« First « Previous Viewing Comments 156-195 of 235 Next » Last » See most liked comments
FollowBefriend (4)117 threads17,655 comments Premium
AMT strongly discourages dual-income high-earner marriages. I’ve heard of others getting divorced later in life (after kids have left) in order to tax manage inheritances when one partner is a high earner and the other is nearing a sizable inheritance. Again, AMT is the culprit. And it’s not always just AMT earnings, but often high deductions activate AMT, thereby taxing the other partner disproportionately.
This is why we must do away with AMT. Throw away most deductions! We need a flat tax.
FollowBefriend15 threads5,071 comments astrid's websitePremium
I maintain that marriage is purely an indefinite contractual agreement for raising kids, sharing expenses, and enjoyment of health insurance.
In cases of marriages with one wealthy elderly party and a sexy younger person of foreign extraction, marriage also functions to take money out of the hands of ungrateful/deserving/awesome because she's SFWoman grandchildren and into the younger spouse's extensive "family."
Oh and BTW, can anyone recommend a perma-bull site/blog for housing ? (Apart from CL, if it can be called as such.)
If you read this site in reverse, you will see perma-bull messages.
I maintain that marriage is purely an indefinite contractual agreement for raising kids, sharing expenses, and enjoyment of health insurance.
Marriage is not indefinite. It ends on the natural, physical death of one or both of its participants.
FollowBefriend (5)44 threads4,602 comments Los Altos, CAPremium
Oh and BTW, can anyone recommend a perma-bull site/blog for housing ?
Try the NAR or CAR's sites. Although they don't have blogs. Actually, I forget who did it (CNN ran the article), but one of those national realtor(tm) orgs opened up a blog for a while that allowed true anonymity. They were very discouraged to find that the PermaBulls suddenly started admitting a hugely Bearish sentiment, when anonymous.
FollowBefriend1 threads3,248 comments
Can someone enlighten me on what CL stands for?
I'm with you on this, insofar as society is concerned. The difference with marriage is what the participants wish to make of it, which doesn't really correlate very well with what the state thinks it should be. But then again, I'm a wacko who believes it's really not the state's business except where concerning the best welfare of children.
According to article 2 of the UCC, a contract that terminates by death or divorce is indefinite. Also, a marriage usually leaves other terms of the contract in the air, such as monetary contributions and willingness to participate in household chores, optimal weight status, etc.
Also, sheesh, and what about Mormon marriages? Huh?
There are actually a lot of marriages in the lower classes for SSI survivor benefits.
This is why I feel that governments shouldn’t marry anybody, gay or straight. All cities should do is civil partnerships of whomever, and then marriages should be in churches.
I do not usually associate God with churches or even religions.
The government should still record marriage for various legal purposes.
Peter P, the problem is that arbitrary persons would regard my wife and I to not be legitimately married because it did not have the sanctioning of any particular religious body, nor did we in any way acknowledge the domain of any entity other than the State of Illinois (and thereby the other 49) over the union. SFWoman's suggestion would clearly demarcate legal civil unions from any particular religious or spiritual ambitions. No one would have their civil liberties encumbered. The state could still manage that which it has a legitimate interest, and individuals and their families could manage the rest. The problem is that various arbitrary activists enjoy exerting control over the legitimate behavior of others, for fairly random and ever shifting reasons.
I hope you weren't offended. It was the sexy foreign grandma that really stirred my imagination. :P As someone who has neither rich forebears nor requisit surgical alterations, I maintain strict neutrality over such matters. As a sometime student of trust and estate law, I find these cases fascinating and quite notable for stupidity of lawyers/judges involved.
I'm not against marriage. If I had children, I definitely want to have them within marriage. I agree with the general sentiment here, marriage is what you make of it.
Good point about advanced medical directives. Ditto a durable power of attorney (if you can really trust your spouse) and handy list of financial information.
Anyone with children really should take time and think about Will/trusts and appointment of guardians for minor children.
FollowBefriend2 threads2,944 comments Different Sean's website
And, you don’t have to agree with the thesis of mental accounting to recognize the massive body of empirically supporting evidence for the effect. Put it this way, if mental accounting theory is wrong then vegas casinos and state lotteries don’t make any money.
yes. = 'behavioural economics'
I remember seeing Sandra Bullock in an interview and she said she’d always been ambivalent about marriage until her boyfriend was in a bad accident and she realized she had no say in what kind of care he would receive.
that's the thing. by getting divorced as a tax dodge, you are giving up other automatic next of kin rights of marriage such as inheritance, types of control, etc -- unless you carefully recraft wills and so on -- and it means that you trust the partner not to just fly the coop one day -- after all, you aren't even married...
there was a guru/spruiker here who was always going on about tax dodges, all the usual guru stuff about incorporating yourself, etc. he used to advocate giving up permanent employment to become a contractor at the same workplace to save a few bucks on tax dodges and deductions -- and a few of his disciples took his advice -- without thinking of the fact they could then be terminated at any time without reason with no redundancy benefits, that they had no sick leave or personal leave entitlements, etc -- so they had really thrown themselves at the mercy of their employer by trying to be too clever...
We need a flat tax based on consumption.
Not that again. Maybe we need lifelong conscription into the army, that would solve everything. I don't think a flat tax will ever get up without substantial changes to a lot of other things - many govts these days have ended up with a mix of flat taxes and progressive ones - but i don't think govt could raise enough money to keep itself happy if it switched to a flat income tax system...
yes. = ‘behavioural economics’
You do know Mental Accounting was Richard H. Thaler, right? As in the groundwork which lead to Behavioral Finance as a science. As in one of the fathers of Behavioral Finance. Or do you just like giving me shit for some arbitrarily sadistic reason?
Peter P, the problem is that arbitrary persons would regard my wife and I to not be legitimately married because it did not have the sanctioning of any particular religious body, nor did we in any way acknowledge the domain of any entity other than the State of Illinois (and thereby the other 49) over the union.
Huh? Religions need not be involved in marriages.
without thinking of the fact they could then be terminated at any time without reason with no redundancy benefits, that they had no sick leave or personal leave entitlements, etc — so they had really thrown themselves at the mercy of their employer by trying to be too clever…
At least in California, as in most other states, employment is "at will". I have been an employer in the state on and off for over a decade. I can terminate people without cause and without reason, so long as it's not provably discrimination against a statutorily protected class. Independent contractors, especially since the mid 90s after the revisions to pre-existing condition/group plan regulations, can usually provide themselves with benefits comparable or greater than available from most California employers. They can't get the best of the best, as in Fortune 100 type benes, but they far exceed the average in cost per value of coverage. I alternate between being an employer and an independently, self incorporated consultant. While self-employed I have always had greater benes, including SEPs et. al. than when an employee of a real company.
I find that people often hold many misconceptions about the limits and practicality of their rights as employees. In California an independent contractor can contest intellectual property invention ownership, an employee may not. The list goes on.
At least in California, as in most other states, employment is “at will”. I have been an employer in the state on and off for over a decade. I can terminate people without cause and without reason, so long as it’s not provably discrimination against a statutorily protected class.
Yes, that's where the Oz guru probably indiscriminately stole his material from -- US gurus. (Gurus are not known to be strong on practical detail.) Over here, you have more employee rights, including the national 'Unfair Dismissal Act', which pretty much requires that you have given 3 written warnings to an employee on an issue before you can terminate, or else suffer repercussions when they sue you.
Futher, the Ralph reforms to taxation came up with the '80:20 rule', that you had to be doing at least 20% of your work for a 2nd party before you could be classed as a contractor for tax purposes -- you couldn't work for someone 100% and claim contractor tax breaks.
However, here you get free national health care regardless of who you work for, I have never heard of an employer offering health insurance as a perk ever, and it's a lot easier just to use your employer's pension plan, altho that's just changed under 'super choice'... The unfair dismissal thing just changed for workplaces less than 100 also, to great agitation -- nobody knows how that will play out yet...
You do know Mental Accounting was Richard H. Thaler, right? As in the groundwork which lead to Behavioral Finance as a science.
aren't i in agreement? jeez, thin skin... :P
Religions need not be involved in marriages.
hmm, yes, there is the religious ceremony and the civil marriage. most of the time religious celebrants are authorised to do the bookwork for the state as well. if you don't do the bookwork for the state, you are not counted as legally married - it's a conditio sine qua non... however, you can just do the bookwork for the state (a 'registry marriage') without bothering with some other rite or ritual of public recognition of allowable sexual relations, heh. i wouldn't bother with a church wedding and all the hooplah, cos i don't believe in it - unless the in-laws made me do it... and i guess such marriages are recognised internationally too - if i got married in germany, that still applies in the US - i can't commit bigamy (unfortunately :cry: )
The amount of propaganda piled on by the media on hurricanes and global warming is staggering.
Katrina hit as a Category 4 hurricane (not a 5) - like 25 percent of all hurricanes. Had one of them hit New Orleans head-on when Teddy Roosevelt was president it would have been just as big a disaster - probably bigger.
maybe there wasn't as much methane and CO2 around when Teddy was president...
But hurricanes are having a large impact on mind share now aren’t they? It’s like getting hit by a wild pitch.
Yes, California has earthquakes. But they don’t name them and have 24 of them a year.
So the weather's turning to shit, climactic patterns are changing latitude, the glaciers are retreating, the snowfields are disappearing and the ice caps are noticeably melting, but global warming is still propaganda? curse that sensationalist lefty latte limousine 10,000 sq ft house-owning liberal press that happens to be owned and run almost exclusively by Repugnants...
here's something by Sir Crispin Tickell:
i can’t commit bigamy (unfortunately :cry: )
Huh? Do you even want to?
maybe there wasn’t as much methane and CO2 around when Teddy was president…
DS, have you read Crichton's State of Fear?
SQT, make sure you have a sufficient life insurance policy for your children too.
i can’t commit bigamy (unfortunately )
Huh? Do you even want to?
sometimes... it's the natural state of man...
DS, have you read Crichton’s State of Fear?
crichton's a rotten right-wing apologist for the status quo, probably unintentionally representing vested US industrial interests and the fact that the US with 5% of the world's popn produces 20% of its greenhouse gases. pretty obvious.
especially when you look at recent exceptional hurricanes and cyclones in the southern US, northern australia, floods in central europe, and the possibility of the entire warming Gulf Stream Atlantic currents disappearing... banks in Europe will no longer finance ski resorts under 1500 m altitude... and they're selling off the skifields here asap...
that's the link i was looking for:
the little bush jr kiddy's environmental record in texas...
IMO, It is not whether hurricanes are stronger or more frequent
hmm, i think they are changing latitudes too though -- going further north and south in their respective hemispheres... and they're supposed to be more intense as well... could just be due to natural decadal oscillation...
they won't be densely populated areas for long if they keep rollin' in...
"The number of major hurricanes has more than doubled in the last six years. The increase is part of a long-term climate shift that is likely to persist for several decades, said Chris Landsea, a meteorological researcher with the U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division and co-author of a study on the findings in the July 20 issue of the journal Science. "
national grographic wouldn't lie -
"During the American Revolution, [Benjamin] Franklin is reputed to have proposed the impractical but scientifically tenable idea of diverting the flow of the Gulf Stream to freeze the British."
The strategy's finally worked, 230 years later...
"“During the American Revolution, [Benjamin] Franklin is reputed to have proposed the impractical but scientifically tenable idea of diverting the flow of the Gulf Stream to freeze the British.”"
Ah, Day After Tomorrow scenarios, can I hijack this thread for another Jack Gyllenhaal non sequitur?
Ah, Day After Tomorrow scenarios, can I hijack this thread for another Jake Gyllenhaal non sequitur?
The Chinese have a saying: If you want one day of unrest, throw a party. If you want a year of unrest, remodel your house. If you want a lifetime of unrest, marry a concubine.
Paying Hamptons or Hawaiian prices for Florida RE always seemed kind of silly to me. Every awake person knows about the constant hurricane threat, the humidity, and the lack of things to do (other than Disney World).
It's kind of like paying full Westside prices to colonize Watts...Or paying house prices for condos...Oh wait, those Miami condos are in bad neighborhoods!
I appreciate all the estate planning wisdom from everyone here. Sadly, we've done just about nothing aside from financial planning. My wife and I are pretty much the first and only from our families to have anything worth planning, so we tend to probably be way to humble about it. Something about the way I grew up tells me that planning my estate means I must be full of hubris. The very word 'estate' doesn't even feel right.
Nonetheless, I'll call my lawyer Monday and get this taken care of. Now if only I can figure out a way to finagle into a Prop 13 legacy property.
Don't feel so bad. My wife and I have holographic wills. Probably adequate for where we are today, but embarassing nonetheless. The cobblers kids go barefoot.
FollowBefriend1,320 comments Allah's website
I think for the most part, there will be more downward pressure on prices due to the more freely flowing distribution of information on the internet. However, there are still some realthors trying there best to brainwash the public into believing the market is going to get better and some sheeple will believe it too as in the very bottom of this article quotes.
"It's a much more attractive time to buy now," said Dettor, 33. "Prices aren't so ridiculous."
Hunter, the West Palm Beach housing analyst, said more buyers will be motivated to move quickly as interest rates climb closer to 7 percent later in the year.
"There is a fear of buying at the top of the market," Hunter said. "Once people satisfy themselves that the market is not going into a tailspin, they'll go ahead and buy."
Do these realthors really believe this themselves?????? I think this guy hunter should really be the hunted!
hmm, i think they are changing latitudes too though — going further north and south in their respective hemispheres… and they’re supposed to be more intense as well… could just be due to natural decadal oscillation…
they won’t be densely populated areas for long if they keep rollin’ in…
Now you're a climato-sociologist?
Shouldn't you be out trying to sell a house?
If you have a life insurance agent or a financial planner already, I'd recommend you talk to them first. They should be just as experienced on the basic stuff and a lot cheaper than talking to someone at $200/hr.
Your personal lawyer will probably suffice for a simple form will, advanced medical directives, etc. Chances are, they'll be straight out of a form book with few minor changes. You can probably DIY with a little research and a friendly notary public.
You can get ready by getting as much financial information together as possible. You're pretty happily married to your first wife, so your primary concerns should be (1) caring for your son in case you and your wife are both out of action (2) probate avoidance (3) dealing with long term illness/disability problems.
For meaty tax planning stuff, I'd recommend you look for someone who specialize in the area. Your lawyer or financial planner or life insurance agent should have someone good on their rolodex. You want to look for someone who spends the majority of his/her time on estate planning and related areas, has at least 5 years of experience, and frequently deals with relatively complicated estates.
disclaimer - just suggestions, always do your own homework before acting
Thanks for the advice. We have a crack tax acct and tax attorney already due to my having been a C/S/LLC/LLP owner and my wife having had various stock options and such (not to mention her status as a Section 16 insider). I think our tax planning is well in line, except for probate avoidance. I'm more worried about legal stuff. I don't trust insurance agents as a general rule and I do the financial component of our wealth management myself. What I need is someone to ensure that we have the right legal structures in place to prevent subversion of our intent should we become dead prematurely, or other calamities and such. Both having extended families that are in quite different economic positions than we, there is a huge potential for moral hazard should something happen to us.
Otherwise it's pretty simple. First marriage, 1 child, shared intent to provide financial security to our child in a reasonable manner consistent with our values, maximize tax avoidance, minimize threat of external opportunists laying claim to a single copper plated cent that we sacrificed much of our lives to earn. Isn't this what everyone wants pretty much?
especially when you look at recent exceptional hurricanes and cyclones in the southern US, northern australia, floods in central europe, and the possibility of the entire warming Gulf Stream Atlantic currents disappearing… banks in Europe will no longer finance ski resorts under 1500 m altitude… and they’re selling off the skifields here asap…
But how can one ascertain that the "warming" be "global"? How can one attribute such "warming" to "greenhouse gases"?
« First « Previous comments Next comments » Last »