The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning the asset and having no debt on your new home that you purchased for 'cash'
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning it
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
I find small time landlording is somewhat attractive from an economic place, but I feel like owning and profiting off of a limited resource that people need to live contains a moral hazard that I'd rather have abstracted further away from my decisions. Like, all of the folks who talked about how they were so stretched that they needed to evict people during a pandemic in order to not go bankrupt themselves is just not a position in which I want to find myself.
I find small time landlording is somewhat attractive from an economic place, but I feel like owning and profiting off of a limited resource that people need to live contains a moral hazard that I'd rather have abstracted further away from my decisions. Like, all of the folks who talked about how they were so stretched that they needed to evict people during a pandemic in order to not go bankrupt themselves is just not a position in which I want to find myself.
Being a good landlord is not a small amount of work imo.
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning it
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
Or if the property has quadrupled in value. Which is what happened to the guy on the last page.
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning it
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
Or if the property has quadrupled in value. Which is what happened to the guy on the last page.
The property quadrupling in value doesn't really matter without the other things. The only way you are going to easily extract that value from a property you haven't paid down is to downgrade your living situation. Because equivalent dwellings will have also roughly quadrupled in value.
I find small time landlording is somewhat attractive from an economic place, but I feel like owning and profiting off of a limited resource that people need to live contains a moral hazard that I'd rather have abstracted further away from my decisions. Like, all of the folks who talked about how they were so stretched that they needed to evict people during a pandemic in order to not go bankrupt themselves is just not a position in which I want to find myself.
Being a good landlord is not a small amount of work imo.
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. I only own one home, which I live in, and I'm pretty shit at maintaining it.
Recently sold my house for a lot more than I expected. But even counting for paying rent over that time if I had held on to the stock I sold for the down payment on that house I'd be financially better off today.
Which is the other thing. All of this is ignoring the opportunity cost of doing something else with that $300k, which might well have a better return.
That said, there is something tempting and Austenian about the idea of owning a full on proper building in the neighborhood. I'd love to own the place down the way from me that's probably got a dozen units and a boarded up old dive bar on the ground floor that's been empty the whole time we've lived here. Get a nice penthouse with roof access that we could turn into a garden that overlooks the city and have some friends of ours turn the ground floor into a blues/ burlesque bar that we get free food and drinks from in exchange for cutting their rent. Outwit Nazis by bribing the French Foreign Legion commander...
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning it
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
Or if the property has quadrupled in value. Which is what happened to the guy on the last page.
The property quadrupling in value doesn't really matter without the other things. The only way you are going to easily extract that value from a property you haven't paid down is to downgrade your living situation. Because equivalent dwellings will have also roughly quadrupled in value.
As I mentioned up thread, that's only an issue if there's something tying you to that specific neighborhood. If the guy decides to just move next door then yeah, it's not a great idea.
Intuit, the parent company of tax filing software TurboTax, is exiting an IRS program that allows many Americans to file their taxes for free. The IRS partners with the Free File Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of tax software companies that offer no-cost tax filing services for the Free File program. Intuit says in a blog post on its website that part of the reason it’s leaving Free File— which is available to 2020 filers with adjusted gross income of $72,000 or less— is the “restraints” of the program.
...
Readers may recall that a series of reports by ProPublica found that Intuit and H&R Block had misled filers into paying to file their taxes. The companies kept the free versions of their software from showing up in search engine results, according to ProPublica, making them harder to find online. The IRS later overhauled the Free File program, removing a provision in the agreement that prohibited the agency from creating an online filing system of its own that would compete with the software companies’ products.
Intuit isn't allowed to fuck people over with old system anymore because of reporting, consumer anger, and shifts in actual rules so they are taking their ball and going home.
Interesting, I used the free web based TurboTax to file this year, and it was a lot scammier than past years, constantly trying to get me to upgrade with various options while filing so that it wouldnt be free anymore.
I've heard of people using property management companies to handle landlord duties for their rental properties. Seems like that could be a good option for less hassles. You'd make less money but i bet it would be worth it.
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
If you're willing to put the initial property up as collateral for the loan I think you could get away with not needing a down payment.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I've heard of people using property management companies to handle landlord duties for their rental properties. Seems like that could be a good option for less hassles. You'd make less money but i bet it would be worth it.
It depends on the proximity to other managed properties.
We live in a 2-unit and rent out the small unit to help with the mortgage. Pretty much the smallest landlord you can imagine with tenants who are neighbors. Being a landlord is work. It's not like owning a mutual fund. And sometimes you will lose money for hopefully not a long while.
That being said, you can usually get up to a 4-unit using a residential mortgage if you live in one of them. If you want to use "this one weird trick" to have tenants pay your mortgage, buy and live in a 4-unit and rent on the other 3 will typically just about cover your monthly mortgage payment. The profit margin probably won't cover all the expenses of being a landlord beyond that. I have a friend who took that route out of college and did well.
Property management companies take around 10% of your gross rent. They typically provide a worse experience to tenants since owners are insulated from the tenants. To be honest, that's one of the reasons small-time landlords get professional management. At least in my home town, the big property management companies all have a worse reputation to rent from compared to independent, self-managed landlords.
tl;dr: if you want to be a better landlord, you can get started with a owner-occupied multi-unit. But you'll have to do the work yourself if you want to be "good".
enc0re on
+5
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Its going to vary by region, but where I am (NW Indiana/Chicagoland) what I've seen when I was working for the bank is a few large finance groups buying/flipping homes, and retirement investment groups where like 10-15 friends will pool their retirement funds and use it to buy and rent out homes.
Edit: The real thing to look at is the average home price in an area. Around here in the last few years its gone up about 60-80k, sometimes more
A friend who owns a condo (though it's more like a two story townhouse) in Phoenix is considering selling it.
He bought it for 75k a little over a decade ago and it's priced at over 300k now.
And he was musing that it's only worth four times what he paid for it and it was all I could do to not slap him.
If your friend was to buy something, it'd also probably be dramatically marked up as well though, right?
Unless you move somewhere cheaper to live.
The problem with "look at how much my house/condo/etc increased in value" is that you can't extract that value easily because after you sell it off you still need someplace to live.
That's why you rent it out for a sizeable proportion of your next mortgage payment.
Where are you living then?
Depends on the property you owned first, but I have a few friends who got a roommate, paid off their condo, and used the rent after everything was paid off to save for the down payment on their next place.
They did eventually sell off the first property because it just wasn't worth the hassle after they got married, but it's not completely crazy.
The anecdotal example was literally someone who'd just paid off their condo.
Have they paid it off? The post just says they own it so that's not clear.
Even if they haven't, they bought at 75k and it's now worth 300k. They can probably charge enough in rent to pay the mortgage with a bundle left over.
But that just gets back to the initial question of "And live where then?". Where's the money coming for buying the next place? Rent is not a big lump sum you can use as a downpayment. There seems to be an assumption of additional assets here that let you purchase another house/condo/etc. Just because a property goes way up in price doesn't mean you automatically gained assets outside of that property, which you are also living in.
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning it
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
Or if the property has quadrupled in value. Which is what happened to the guy on the last page.
The property quadrupling in value doesn't really matter without the other things. The only way you are going to easily extract that value from a property you haven't paid down is to downgrade your living situation. Because equivalent dwellings will have also roughly quadrupled in value.
It still works without the other things, you just have less new/ re-fi'd mortgage cash to spend on your new place since there will be less equity to tap compared to owning outright. But, seeing how we are talking about 4x increase in value, it's still a lot of money available for having done nothing.
So let's say you don't own the original place outright and it's only been 5 years. So your $60k mortgage (20% down on $75k home) still has $57k on it. That still means you have ~$183,000 available in cash to put towards your new home (which is also its own separate asset that you can leverage to get another mortgage on, it's just riskier for you if something goes wrong) after zeroing out the original mortgage. And, thanks to the collapse of interest rates, you probably have more headroom when viewed as a monthly expense rather than total owed, even with rising property tax. Especially because you presumably are still working your day job that qualified you for all these loans in the first place.
Will your new, $183,000 (+potential second mortgage) place be as nice as your current $75k->$300k place? Maybe not, but move outside of the gentrifying neighborhood and you can probably find an ~equivalent place to what $75k got you a few years back somewhere with fewer amenities. Is that a deal breaker? That'll depend on you.
Martin Wolf, my favorite economics commentator in my favorite newspaper, argues that the time for central bank digital currencies has come. Excellent read if you can access it.
Ultimately, the goal should be faster, safer and cheaper payment systems, available to all. It is crucial that the natural monopoly of money and the public good of a payment system does not morph into private monopolies of digital giants. The intermeshing of public purpose with the private interests of banks has been bad enough. If the same happened on a bigger scale with, say, Facebook, it would be even worse.
A huge question is what the emergence of CBDCs might mean for private banks. Evidently, in a crisis, money might run into CBDCs from other liquid assets, including conventional bank deposits. Yet one can also argue that the possibility of owning completely safe CBDC accounts could be a good thing. The moral hazard created by public guarantees to private banks could then be ended and so the financial system would be reconfigured without it.
Isn't the dollar essentially a central bank digital currency in many ways already?
Or are we back to talking about digital anonymity being the paramount goal?
CBDCs aren't fully defined yet. I foresee the following as the key difference from traditional currency: a CBDC will have its own transfer mechanism built in. With paper currency, the only transfers mechanism is physically handing them over. Traditional settlement accounts use payment systems. If you want to send money, your bank or another entity does it for you.
With a CBDC, I could give you a dollar right now. No person in the middle, unless you count the central bank.
One of the open questions is whether we commoners could hold direct ledger accounts at the Fed, or whether the banks would have those and we would have to have CBDC accounts at banks. I'm hoping for the former.
there will never be a direct ledger of every dollar because then how will the rich do their tax evasion?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Isn't the dollar essentially a central bank digital currency in many ways already?
Or are we back to talking about digital anonymity being the paramount goal?
No because the Fed does not have a central ledger of what money you own. And the Fed doesn't handle payments you make at the store. Etc.
Isn't the Fed technically involved in any ACH transfer that I make? Like, using online bill pay from my credit union for my Visa? Admittedly that isn't the grocer's cash register, but still.
One rather basic benefit of doing this is also just literally moving off of 1970's era technology and the baked in assumptions from a time before the internet was a thing.
I know it's not exactly the economy but the us market is looking to have day three of pullback according to futures this morning. The media says it's fears over inflation but it feels more like profit taking to me.
The day to day of the stock market is extremely volatile. It's long term trend is what to look at, and that's still up.
As an update, ending the week at a new market high.
I know it's not exactly the economy but the us market is looking to have day three of pullback according to futures this morning. The media says it's fears over inflation but it feels more like profit taking to me.
The day to day of the stock market is extremely volatile. It's long term trend is what to look at, and that's still up.
As an update, ending the week at a new market high.
I know it's not exactly the economy but the us market is looking to have day three of pullback according to futures this morning. The media says it's fears over inflation but it feels more like profit taking to me.
The day to day of the stock market is extremely volatile. It's long term trend is what to look at, and that's still up.
As an update, ending the week at a new market high.
I know it's not exactly the economy but the us market is looking to have day three of pullback according to futures this morning. The media says it's fears over inflation but it feels more like profit taking to me.
The day to day of the stock market is extremely volatile. It's long term trend is what to look at, and that's still up.
As an update, ending the week at a new market high.
This time.
"The stock market is down!"
"But now it's back up."
"Yeah but what if it goes down again?!"
???
This right here is what like 50% of all articles written about stocks (and 100% of all articles written about bitcoin) boil down to.
Even if you can’t put your fingers on the scale, the stock market produces outstanding risk-adjusted returns. So good in fact, that the degree of risk aversion implied by the equity premium (returns in excess of the “risk free rate”) is not reconcilable with risk preferences we see elsewhere.
+16
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Even if you can’t put your fingers on the scale, the stock market produces outstanding risk-adjusted returns. So good in fact, that the degree of risk aversion implied by the equity premium (returns in excess of the “risk free rate”) is not reconcilable with risk preferences we see elsewhere.
There was a PBS Frontline recently that had the quote from one of the interviewees, "The Fed has effectively put a floor on losses in the market."
It was obvious to folks looking, but it was nice to hear it said out loud.
Fresh coronavirus outbreaks are forcing factory shutdowns in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, aggravating supply chain disruptions that could leave some U.S. retailers with empty shelves as consumers begin their back-to-school shopping.
The overseas work stoppages are just the latest twist in almost 18 months of pandemic-related manufacturing and transportation woes. The new infections come as two of the largest U.S. railroads last week restricted shipments from West Coast seaports to Chicago, where a surge of shipping containers has clogged rail yards.
Supply headaches stretching from Asian factory towns to the American Midwest are intensifying as the economic recovery tries to outrun the highly infectious delta variant. Aftershocks from earlier limits on a major Chinese port following a rash of covid-19 cases are expected later this month to worsen backlogs at U.S. West Coast facilities.
The entire logistical system is clogged up. Companies are doing what they can to catch up but it is leading to over supply without the storage spaces in places. This is a big part of inflation as the supply lines are just broken atm.
And it won't probably clear up till next year at the earliest most analyst think.
Fresh coronavirus outbreaks are forcing factory shutdowns in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, aggravating supply chain disruptions that could leave some U.S. retailers with empty shelves as consumers begin their back-to-school shopping.
The overseas work stoppages are just the latest twist in almost 18 months of pandemic-related manufacturing and transportation woes. The new infections come as two of the largest U.S. railroads last week restricted shipments from West Coast seaports to Chicago, where a surge of shipping containers has clogged rail yards.
Supply headaches stretching from Asian factory towns to the American Midwest are intensifying as the economic recovery tries to outrun the highly infectious delta variant. Aftershocks from earlier limits on a major Chinese port following a rash of covid-19 cases are expected later this month to worsen backlogs at U.S. West Coast facilities.
The entire logistical system is clogged up. Companies are doing what they can to catch up but it is leading to over supply without the storage spaces in places. This is a big part of inflation as the supply lines are just broken atm.
And it won't probably clear up till next year at the earliest most analyst think.
Behold, the future.
Lean, efficient and fragile only works in times of (relatively) low chaos. As the times become more "interesting" - due to climate change, disease, war, and other disruptions - systems will either have to become more robust, or face collapse.
The 20 Republican-led states that reduced unemployment benefits in June did not see an immediate spike in overall hiring, but early evidence suggests something did change: The teen hiring boom slowed in those states, and workers 25 and older returned to work more quickly.
A new analysis by payroll processor Gusto, conducted for The Washington Post, found that small restaurants and hospitality businesses in states such as Missouri, which ended the extra unemployment benefits early, saw a jump in hiring of workers over age 25. The uptick in hiring of older workers was roughly offset by the slower hiring of teens in these states. In contrast, restaurants and hospitality businesses in states such as Kansas, where the full benefits remain, have been hiring a lot more teenagers who are less experienced and less likely to qualify for unemployment aid.
The findings suggest hiring is likely to remain difficult for some time, especially in the lower-paying hospitality sector. The analysis also adds perspective to the teen hiring boom, revealing that more generous unemployment payments played a role in keeping more experienced workers on the sidelines, forcing employers to turn to younger workers. It indicates teen hiring could slow further in September, as unemployment benefits are reduced across the country and young people return to school.
...
So far, early data suggests that cutting the benefits given to Americans who lost their jobs during the covid-19 pandemic has not led to a big pickup in hiring. The 20 states that reduced benefits in June had the same pace of hiring as the mostly Democrat-led states that kept the extra $300-a-week unemployment payments in place, according to state-level data from the Labor Department. Survey data from the Census Bureau and Gusto’s small-business payroll data show similar results.
Many economists and business owners say other issues such as health concerns, child-care problems and workers reassessing their career choices appear to be larger factors keeping them home.
Well results are coming in from this real life economic experiment. Cutting benefits didn't push people back to work in mass and probably just hurt people. Woops.
Posts
1) Buy condo for $75k 15 years ago
2) Pay of that mortgage while it simultaneously appreciates to over $300k now
3) Take out a new Mortgage/ Home Equity Loan on that current property you now own outright for ~80% of the new appraised value (to avoid mortgage insurance)
4) Use that >$240,000 in your bank account, plus whatever personal savings you have accrued over 15 years, to make an all cash purchase on your new home
5) Pay off the new mortgage with rental income of your first property while still owning the asset and having no debt on your new home that you purchased for 'cash'
6) Curl your moustache like Snidely Whiplash
Right, this only works if you've held on to the property for a long time and have paid off the mortgage.
Neither of which are pre-requisites for a large increase in property value these days.
Being a good landlord is not a small amount of work imo.
Or if the property has quadrupled in value. Which is what happened to the guy on the last page.
The property quadrupling in value doesn't really matter without the other things. The only way you are going to easily extract that value from a property you haven't paid down is to downgrade your living situation. Because equivalent dwellings will have also roughly quadrupled in value.
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. I only own one home, which I live in, and I'm pretty shit at maintaining it.
Which is the other thing. All of this is ignoring the opportunity cost of doing something else with that $300k, which might well have a better return.
That said, there is something tempting and Austenian about the idea of owning a full on proper building in the neighborhood. I'd love to own the place down the way from me that's probably got a dozen units and a boarded up old dive bar on the ground floor that's been empty the whole time we've lived here. Get a nice penthouse with roof access that we could turn into a garden that overlooks the city and have some friends of ours turn the ground floor into a blues/ burlesque bar that we get free food and drinks from in exchange for cutting their rent. Outwit Nazis by bribing the French Foreign Legion commander...
As I mentioned up thread, that's only an issue if there's something tying you to that specific neighborhood. If the guy decides to just move next door then yeah, it's not a great idea.
Interesting, I used the free web based TurboTax to file this year, and it was a lot scammier than past years, constantly trying to get me to upgrade with various options while filing so that it wouldnt be free anymore.
MWO: Adamski
If you're willing to put the initial property up as collateral for the loan I think you could get away with not needing a down payment.
It depends on the proximity to other managed properties.
That being said, you can usually get up to a 4-unit using a residential mortgage if you live in one of them. If you want to use "this one weird trick" to have tenants pay your mortgage, buy and live in a 4-unit and rent on the other 3 will typically just about cover your monthly mortgage payment. The profit margin probably won't cover all the expenses of being a landlord beyond that. I have a friend who took that route out of college and did well.
Property management companies take around 10% of your gross rent. They typically provide a worse experience to tenants since owners are insulated from the tenants. To be honest, that's one of the reasons small-time landlords get professional management. At least in my home town, the big property management companies all have a worse reputation to rent from compared to independent, self-managed landlords.
tl;dr: if you want to be a better landlord, you can get started with a owner-occupied multi-unit. But you'll have to do the work yourself if you want to be "good".
Depends on the property you owned first, but I have a few friends who got a roommate, paid off their condo, and used the rent after everything was paid off to save for the down payment on their next place.
They did eventually sell off the first property because it just wasn't worth the hassle after they got married, but it's not completely crazy.
It still works without the other things, you just have less new/ re-fi'd mortgage cash to spend on your new place since there will be less equity to tap compared to owning outright. But, seeing how we are talking about 4x increase in value, it's still a lot of money available for having done nothing.
So let's say you don't own the original place outright and it's only been 5 years. So your $60k mortgage (20% down on $75k home) still has $57k on it. That still means you have ~$183,000 available in cash to put towards your new home (which is also its own separate asset that you can leverage to get another mortgage on, it's just riskier for you if something goes wrong) after zeroing out the original mortgage. And, thanks to the collapse of interest rates, you probably have more headroom when viewed as a monthly expense rather than total owed, even with rising property tax. Especially because you presumably are still working your day job that qualified you for all these loans in the first place.
Will your new, $183,000 (+potential second mortgage) place be as nice as your current $75k->$300k place? Maybe not, but move outside of the gentrifying neighborhood and you can probably find an ~equivalent place to what $75k got you a few years back somewhere with fewer amenities. Is that a deal breaker? That'll depend on you.
Or are we back to talking about digital anonymity being the paramount goal?
CBDCs aren't fully defined yet. I foresee the following as the key difference from traditional currency: a CBDC will have its own transfer mechanism built in. With paper currency, the only transfers mechanism is physically handing them over. Traditional settlement accounts use payment systems. If you want to send money, your bank or another entity does it for you.
With a CBDC, I could give you a dollar right now. No person in the middle, unless you count the central bank.
No because the Fed does not have a central ledger of what money you own. And the Fed doesn't handle payments you make at the store. Etc.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Isn't the Fed technically involved in any ACH transfer that I make? Like, using online bill pay from my credit union for my Visa? Admittedly that isn't the grocer's cash register, but still.
One rather basic benefit of doing this is also just literally moving off of 1970's era technology and the baked in assumptions from a time before the internet was a thing.
As an update, ending the week at a new market high.
Bitcoin?
That's only a portion of the holders' wealth, not all of it.
This time.
"The stock market is down!"
"But now it's back up."
"Yeah but what if it goes down again?!"
???
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-central-bank-looking-phased-launch-its-own-digital-currency-2021-07-23/
This right here is what like 50% of all articles written about stocks (and 100% of all articles written about bitcoin) boil down to.
Which ironically is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the efficient-market hypothesis.
They do only because they can put their finger on the mechanisms which affect the outcome. To their benefit of course.
When people outside their group figure these things out and try to do it, too they tend to get upset. See the whole Stonkmarket and whatnot.
In the casino analogy the wealthy are the house. The house never loses.
There was a PBS Frontline recently that had the quote from one of the interviewees, "The Fed has effectively put a floor on losses in the market."
It was obvious to folks looking, but it was nice to hear it said out loud.
The entire logistical system is clogged up. Companies are doing what they can to catch up but it is leading to over supply without the storage spaces in places. This is a big part of inflation as the supply lines are just broken atm.
And it won't probably clear up till next year at the earliest most analyst think.
Behold, the future.
Lean, efficient and fragile only works in times of (relatively) low chaos. As the times become more "interesting" - due to climate change, disease, war, and other disruptions - systems will either have to become more robust, or face collapse.
Well results are coming in from this real life economic experiment. Cutting benefits didn't push people back to work in mass and probably just hurt people. Woops.