My current situation would be the best tax position to rent out all the houses, and live in a cheap apartment rental, but the family objects to that, so we forgo some of the tax benefits of a landlord tax shelter to be an owner-occupied home buyer.
What tax implications? If you replace the roof of your rental, you can deduct it as a business expense. If you replace the roof of the home you live in, you can't deduct it.
The government pays you to be a landlord, but not if you live there.
I'm selling everything in Alaska if they ever build a natural gas pipeline, or any of the 10 plans to build a train to London/China happen. The last time that happened, in the '80s, the land tripled in value as the workers working on the pipeline flooded the state. Then crashed to pre-boom levels in the late '80s. I'll sell out the day the ground breaks on the gas pipeline or Bering Bridge, hopefully about half way to the bubble peak, and about double today. Fingers crossed.
But it's true for California, Texas, most of New England. Just Detroit, Las Vegas, and PA single out as big losers. Rural land was falling for a while, then popped up as some federal farming programs boosted it up, and I sold big in that bubble, mostly by chance, and it dropped again, as the demand for rural land not near a city falls. But tiny farming tows in MT and ID are holding steady and growing in value. The farmland around the town isn't thriving, but the towns themselves see housing increasing. But you'll always do better with large pieces of land in a city. Buy cheap land in bad neighborhoods that's "big". The land has the value, not the structure.
And I'm an "old Gen-X", my parents were pre-boomers (silent generation, as one of the names). I just made it through college with no debt (And no help from the parents). Saving working in high school, scholarships, and living cheaply in college. And making it out with a degree and starting from there was a better start than most, but was planned. I have had a 10 year financial plan since I was about 8, updated as I grow.
It works for anyone. Get a job. Save 25% of what you make until you have $40k. At $10 an hour, it's 8 years. Then buy a $200k house. Put your "savings" of 25% into paying down the house loan, until you have $80k of equity (about 3-5 years), then borrow against your current house to buy a second $200k house. Rent out #2, live in #1. After the second, the time to new houses will go down, and you keep working and putting all you can in paying down the house with the highest interest, or newest to the portfolio.
Of course, the more you make the quicker you can act, or buy more expensive homes. But the plan is the same, and someone on minimum wage could (theoretically) become a rent-seeking land owner. It's just harder the less you make.
But if *everyone* tried it at the same time, the market would spike, and those who own land now would make out the best.
The estate tax is on the value of the estate at death. It's not based on income at all. Otherwise, the federal exemptions on the estate would not make any sense.
Nope. If you give your entire estate to a charity, the estate tax is not charged. If the income the recipient gets is tax free, then the estate tax is not charged.
Trusts aren't established at death; they have to be established before death.
Correct. But they change hands on death. You put your wealth in a trust before death, and structure the trust to minimize income taxes while you are alive and estate taxes when you die.
The federal estate tax exemption only exempts a few millions, so for hundred-millionaires and billionaires it's just a blip.
The exemption is just a blip, but so is the tax itself. It is charged on things you own *after* death. Move things into trusts with POD or non-owner management retained while alive, and when dead, the items are transferred without ever being part of the "estate". It's good for passing land within a family, and the rich use it to move land and trusts to children without counting against the estate.
What the extremely wealthy do have are very expensive lawyers and ways of not having their assets in their name when they die. Standard trusts like you're referring to don't do that.
You assumed "standard trust". Obviously, it's correct for "some manner of trust" where trust means the dictionary definition of a trust, and not just an UGMA (or other specific trust defined by law).
Yes, I'm being vague and half-truthy, because that's how the law works, and where the billionaires live. It's not that I don't understand or I'm trying to deceive, but that the truth is too complex to capture in a reasonable-length post. So I summarize and generalize where appropriate.
Google says 280K in interest, not 28K @ 3.92% interest over 30 years.
All other costs and income is labeled "per year", so why would you change that for the interest?
You can speculate on a 100% increase in the next 7-15 years, but that's a rearward looking indicator
No, it's a forward speculation. And the "rearward looking indicator" is universal. Nearly every country, nearly every market. Yes, it "could" break tomorow, but if it does, so will food distribution, and all the other necessities.
If you don't borrow to buy, you are doing it wrong. Borrow $400k for a $400k house, paying $28k in interest, $10k in carrying cost, and charging $3k for rent. Though, I used unfavorable rent, and a high carrying cost, so I'm sure you'll take exception at the rental price. The numbers aren't far off for many places. A $300k house in Anchorage will rent for $2300 per month.
The goal with a rental is to break-even cashflow. The market will go up 100% in 7-15 years, and you will make 2-5% above inflation with more "guarantee" than any other investment with those returns. As the equity increases on your portfolio, you borrow against it to buy more houses, to the same effect. When you have 10+ houses, you sell 5 of them to pay off as much as you can, then you optimize your portfolio to cashflow. with 4 houses left, you'll have $112k income per year (at the $400k house example above), and have that paying out from an appreciating principle.
I'm 3 houses towards my 10, though I'm doing it wrong, as I'm living in one, and one one mortgage-free. But personal and tax implications have done that, not a lack of understanding the optimal path. One more every 2 years, until I have 5, then one every year to 10, then two every year until retirement is the plan. Retire by 55 with $10M in the bank, and a steady income that relies on no government. It's doable, and not hard. I've had retired by 45, if not for marriage. But that was on a non-house plan, so there's more than one way to retire early and independent of any government plans.
There's no special correlation between prices and liquidity; there's a better correlation between how "hot" or bubble-like a market is, though. Volume isn't the same as price.
And the reality is that they are right. The trend has never reversed. Housing prices drop on a short-term, but it always goes back up. The only exception I can think of is West Texas desert wasteland. In the early '80s, it was selling for insane amounts, with people expecting every inch of TX to hold oil. When the real-estate bust happened (leading to the S&L scandal, exactly the same as the most recent housing bust), and the prices dropped, and the verified worthless land that was speculated on was worth nothing. And mostly still is. But, aside from a few "local" exceptions of purely speculative behavior, the losses are short. My houses got back to pre-bust levels after about 3 years. Yes, the short-term speculators lost money, but people living in houses never lost anything, and are back above the peaks, in most cases.
So long as people procreate, land will only go up in value. I make more owning a house that's appreciating, than working a job that puts me in the top 10% of wage earners. Buy all you can, hold it, and rent seek. It's the most direct path to wealth for anyone not born rich.
By your logic, the robber politely asking you to hand over your wallet while pointing a gun at you is not using "force" unless they touch you. I disagree with your assessment of "force".
No, that's not a straw man, perhaps "Reductio ad absurdum", but if you are going to use big words, you should probably learn what they mean, and you obviously don't know what "straw man" means.
The implication is that if you can do those things, and haven't proven it to claim $1,000,000, you are most likely a liar. Why not prove such things possible and collect some money at the same time? Regardless of your response, the actual answer to that question will be assumed to be "because I know I'm a liar."
Exposing fraud is never impolite, no matter how polite the fraudster claims to be.
The way the insane are moving into a town and demanding others change their lives to accommodate them? Those motherfuckers aren't leaving motherfuckers alone. But you support the insane motherfuckers over the sane motherfuckers. Why?
So you'd expect an employee who refuses to go to all meetings because they aren't productive would get the "employee of the month" award? No, the manager manages the time of those under them, including directly wasting it sometimes. The example of the meeting dodger would result in firing, not a promotion for good time management
So IPv6 address assignment works on mobile, but not WiFi. That is much more clear, simple, and shorter than "IT Pros Blast Google Over Android's Refusal To Play Nice With IPv6"
My two favorite brands are Braum's and Ben and Jerry's. Braum's is cheap and local (at least was when I could get it). B&J is premium. Braum's is priced about the same as the generics in chain grocery stores, but was so much better. http://www.braums.com/ice-crea... was one of my favorites.
I've not heard of an ice cream that didn't melt.
The funny thing about psychology is that people value things more if others do, so Monster cable is worth more to the average person because if it wasn't better, they wouldn't charge 10x the other cables, right? Exclusivity is value, even if the exclusivity is false.
By Default DHCP holds addresses for 24 hours, and a device with a DHCP assignment running out will essentially request the same address. It takes a broken client, or a deliberately sabotaged server (some ISPs do it to force clients to change IPs frequently, otherwise an always-on DHCP-served router is a static IP) for the IPs of clients to change frequently.
The server holds the IP for the set time, no matter what (barring a manual flush), so for 24 hours, the IP will not be assigned to anyone other than the one assigned it. The client will use the IP for 12 hours before trying to get a renew of it, and will use the assigned IP for 24 hours, then lose its IP after 24 hours. If the renewal response is "yes" but with a new IP, the client, with a "broken" server, could change IPs once every 12 hours with a 24 hour assignment.
"Sleep" shouldn't lose the IP. What may happen is that "sleep" loses the network connection, so the OS starts a new network connection, and wipes the assignment already given. That's wrong, but understandable for a device that expects to be on a new network every time it's turned on.
"Reasonable efforts to protect" may include a C&D, but need not. You can send a letter of notice of infringement and permission to continue, and it will be considered a reasonable effort to protect the copyright.
C&D without thought is the "easy" answer, but not the only answer. The only reason it's considered the only answer is the lazy students in IP courses who don't understand the issues covered, who think that a passing grade is proof of mastery.
I've seen that in a corporate setting. The RAID drives were all bought together, and the insane drive activity that kicks off when a drive fails will kill delicate drives. After a week of replacing drives and hoping the RAID rebuilt before the next failed, the weekend came. So I expensed some delivery pizza and replaced all the drives at once with new ones, and restored from backup tape. In 6 or so years, the next guy would have had the same problem, if they are still using the same old Comapq servers and RAID.
The billionaires don't pay estate taxes. For one, it's not a tax on death, or the person who made the money being taxed twice. It's an income tax on the person receiving income (from an inheritance). And you tax based on the income value. You can gift someone about $15k per year without triggering income or estate tax thresholds. So you gift your little Paris $15k in hotel stock every year forever, and you'll pay out $1M tax-free. Also, when you die, you put it all in a trust structured to shield them from tax liability. The standard plot device of "rich, but not" where you have controlling interest in Stark or Wayne Enterprise or whatever, but no spending money. Like in the comics, this wealthy but poor only lasts a month, before they are back to normal. But those tricks are used in real life to avoid income taxes, especially for inheritance, and business holdings.
Slashdot Mirror
My current situation would be the best tax position to rent out all the houses, and live in a cheap apartment rental, but the family objects to that, so we forgo some of the tax benefits of a landlord tax shelter to be an owner-occupied home buyer.
What tax implications? If you replace the roof of your rental, you can deduct it as a business expense. If you replace the roof of the home you live in, you can't deduct it.
The government pays you to be a landlord, but not if you live there.
I'm selling everything in Alaska if they ever build a natural gas pipeline, or any of the 10 plans to build a train to London/China happen. The last time that happened, in the '80s, the land tripled in value as the workers working on the pipeline flooded the state. Then crashed to pre-boom levels in the late '80s. I'll sell out the day the ground breaks on the gas pipeline or Bering Bridge, hopefully about half way to the bubble peak, and about double today. Fingers crossed.
But it's true for California, Texas, most of New England. Just Detroit, Las Vegas, and PA single out as big losers. Rural land was falling for a while, then popped up as some federal farming programs boosted it up, and I sold big in that bubble, mostly by chance, and it dropped again, as the demand for rural land not near a city falls. But tiny farming tows in MT and ID are holding steady and growing in value. The farmland around the town isn't thriving, but the towns themselves see housing increasing. But you'll always do better with large pieces of land in a city. Buy cheap land in bad neighborhoods that's "big". The land has the value, not the structure.
And I'm an "old Gen-X", my parents were pre-boomers (silent generation, as one of the names). I just made it through college with no debt (And no help from the parents). Saving working in high school, scholarships, and living cheaply in college. And making it out with a degree and starting from there was a better start than most, but was planned. I have had a 10 year financial plan since I was about 8, updated as I grow.
It works for anyone. Get a job. Save 25% of what you make until you have $40k. At $10 an hour, it's 8 years. Then buy a $200k house. Put your "savings" of 25% into paying down the house loan, until you have $80k of equity (about 3-5 years), then borrow against your current house to buy a second $200k house. Rent out #2, live in #1. After the second, the time to new houses will go down, and you keep working and putting all you can in paying down the house with the highest interest, or newest to the portfolio.
Of course, the more you make the quicker you can act, or buy more expensive homes. But the plan is the same, and someone on minimum wage could (theoretically) become a rent-seeking land owner. It's just harder the less you make.
But if *everyone* tried it at the same time, the market would spike, and those who own land now would make out the best.
The estate tax is on the value of the estate at death. It's not based on income at all. Otherwise, the federal exemptions on the estate would not make any sense.
Nope. If you give your entire estate to a charity, the estate tax is not charged. If the income the recipient gets is tax free, then the estate tax is not charged.
Trusts aren't established at death; they have to be established before death.
Correct. But they change hands on death. You put your wealth in a trust before death, and structure the trust to minimize income taxes while you are alive and estate taxes when you die.
The federal estate tax exemption only exempts a few millions, so for hundred-millionaires and billionaires it's just a blip.
The exemption is just a blip, but so is the tax itself. It is charged on things you own *after* death. Move things into trusts with POD or non-owner management retained while alive, and when dead, the items are transferred without ever being part of the "estate". It's good for passing land within a family, and the rich use it to move land and trusts to children without counting against the estate.
What the extremely wealthy do have are very expensive lawyers and ways of not having their assets in their name when they die. Standard trusts like you're referring to don't do that.
You assumed "standard trust". Obviously, it's correct for "some manner of trust" where trust means the dictionary definition of a trust, and not just an UGMA (or other specific trust defined by law).
Yes, I'm being vague and half-truthy, because that's how the law works, and where the billionaires live. It's not that I don't understand or I'm trying to deceive, but that the truth is too complex to capture in a reasonable-length post. So I summarize and generalize where appropriate.
Google says 280K in interest, not 28K @ 3.92% interest over 30 years.
All other costs and income is labeled "per year", so why would you change that for the interest?
You can speculate on a 100% increase in the next 7-15 years, but that's a rearward looking indicator
No, it's a forward speculation. And the "rearward looking indicator" is universal. Nearly every country, nearly every market. Yes, it "could" break tomorow, but if it does, so will food distribution, and all the other necessities.
If you don't borrow to buy, you are doing it wrong. Borrow $400k for a $400k house, paying $28k in interest, $10k in carrying cost, and charging $3k for rent. Though, I used unfavorable rent, and a high carrying cost, so I'm sure you'll take exception at the rental price. The numbers aren't far off for many places. A $300k house in Anchorage will rent for $2300 per month.
The goal with a rental is to break-even cashflow. The market will go up 100% in 7-15 years, and you will make 2-5% above inflation with more "guarantee" than any other investment with those returns. As the equity increases on your portfolio, you borrow against it to buy more houses, to the same effect. When you have 10+ houses, you sell 5 of them to pay off as much as you can, then you optimize your portfolio to cashflow. with 4 houses left, you'll have $112k income per year (at the $400k house example above), and have that paying out from an appreciating principle.
I'm 3 houses towards my 10, though I'm doing it wrong, as I'm living in one, and one one mortgage-free. But personal and tax implications have done that, not a lack of understanding the optimal path. One more every 2 years, until I have 5, then one every year to 10, then two every year until retirement is the plan. Retire by 55 with $10M in the bank, and a steady income that relies on no government. It's doable, and not hard. I've had retired by 45, if not for marriage. But that was on a non-house plan, so there's more than one way to retire early and independent of any government plans.
There's no special correlation between prices and liquidity; there's a better correlation between how "hot" or bubble-like a market is, though. Volume isn't the same as price.
It's a measure of supply and demand.
And the reality is that they are right. The trend has never reversed. Housing prices drop on a short-term, but it always goes back up. The only exception I can think of is West Texas desert wasteland. In the early '80s, it was selling for insane amounts, with people expecting every inch of TX to hold oil. When the real-estate bust happened (leading to the S&L scandal, exactly the same as the most recent housing bust), and the prices dropped, and the verified worthless land that was speculated on was worth nothing. And mostly still is. But, aside from a few "local" exceptions of purely speculative behavior, the losses are short. My houses got back to pre-bust levels after about 3 years. Yes, the short-term speculators lost money, but people living in houses never lost anything, and are back above the peaks, in most cases.
So long as people procreate, land will only go up in value. I make more owning a house that's appreciating, than working a job that puts me in the top 10% of wage earners. Buy all you can, hold it, and rent seek. It's the most direct path to wealth for anyone not born rich.
If they believe it so strongly and are inviting others to witness, why wouldn't they object to objectively proving it?
By your logic, the robber politely asking you to hand over your wallet while pointing a gun at you is not using "force" unless they touch you. I disagree with your assessment of "force".
No, that's not a straw man, perhaps "Reductio ad absurdum", but if you are going to use big words, you should probably learn what they mean, and you obviously don't know what "straw man" means.
The implication is that if you can do those things, and haven't proven it to claim $1,000,000, you are most likely a liar. Why not prove such things possible and collect some money at the same time? Regardless of your response, the actual answer to that question will be assumed to be "because I know I'm a liar."
Exposing fraud is never impolite, no matter how polite the fraudster claims to be.
Moral of the story: Leave motherfuckers alone.
The way the insane are moving into a town and demanding others change their lives to accommodate them? Those motherfuckers aren't leaving motherfuckers alone. But you support the insane motherfuckers over the sane motherfuckers. Why?
So you'd expect an employee who refuses to go to all meetings because they aren't productive would get the "employee of the month" award? No, the manager manages the time of those under them, including directly wasting it sometimes. The example of the meeting dodger would result in firing, not a promotion for good time management
You just prove yourself valuable, then refuse to work. They either fire you, or tolerate you working 40 hours a week.
So IPv6 address assignment works on mobile, but not WiFi. That is much more clear, simple, and shorter than "IT Pros Blast Google Over Android's Refusal To Play Nice With IPv6"
Seriously, I've seen it done. Backup from C: to D:, when they are separate partitions on the same physical drive.
My two favorite brands are Braum's and Ben and Jerry's. Braum's is cheap and local (at least was when I could get it). B&J is premium. Braum's is priced about the same as the generics in chain grocery stores, but was so much better. http://www.braums.com/ice-crea... was one of my favorites.
I've not heard of an ice cream that didn't melt.
The funny thing about psychology is that people value things more if others do, so Monster cable is worth more to the average person because if it wasn't better, they wouldn't charge 10x the other cables, right? Exclusivity is value, even if the exclusivity is false.
So then, what's the article about?
By Default DHCP holds addresses for 24 hours, and a device with a DHCP assignment running out will essentially request the same address. It takes a broken client, or a deliberately sabotaged server (some ISPs do it to force clients to change IPs frequently, otherwise an always-on DHCP-served router is a static IP) for the IPs of clients to change frequently.
The server holds the IP for the set time, no matter what (barring a manual flush), so for 24 hours, the IP will not be assigned to anyone other than the one assigned it. The client will use the IP for 12 hours before trying to get a renew of it, and will use the assigned IP for 24 hours, then lose its IP after 24 hours. If the renewal response is "yes" but with a new IP, the client, with a "broken" server, could change IPs once every 12 hours with a 24 hour assignment.
"Sleep" shouldn't lose the IP. What may happen is that "sleep" loses the network connection, so the OS starts a new network connection, and wipes the assignment already given. That's wrong, but understandable for a device that expects to be on a new network every time it's turned on.
Apparently not easily on IPv6.
"Reasonable efforts to protect" may include a C&D, but need not. You can send a letter of notice of infringement and permission to continue, and it will be considered a reasonable effort to protect the copyright.
C&D without thought is the "easy" answer, but not the only answer. The only reason it's considered the only answer is the lazy students in IP courses who don't understand the issues covered, who think that a passing grade is proof of mastery.
I've seen that in a corporate setting. The RAID drives were all bought together, and the insane drive activity that kicks off when a drive fails will kill delicate drives. After a week of replacing drives and hoping the RAID rebuilt before the next failed, the weekend came. So I expensed some delivery pizza and replaced all the drives at once with new ones, and restored from backup tape. In 6 or so years, the next guy would have had the same problem, if they are still using the same old Comapq servers and RAID.
I always backup to a second partition on the backed up drive. Backups faster than using an external.
The billionaires don't pay estate taxes. For one, it's not a tax on death, or the person who made the money being taxed twice. It's an income tax on the person receiving income (from an inheritance). And you tax based on the income value. You can gift someone about $15k per year without triggering income or estate tax thresholds. So you gift your little Paris $15k in hotel stock every year forever, and you'll pay out $1M tax-free. Also, when you die, you put it all in a trust structured to shield them from tax liability. The standard plot device of "rich, but not" where you have controlling interest in Stark or Wayne Enterprise or whatever, but no spending money. Like in the comics, this wealthy but poor only lasts a month, before they are back to normal. But those tricks are used in real life to avoid income taxes, especially for inheritance, and business holdings.