California credit rating cut close to junk

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

yeah, but if you gave the same money to a landlord each month instead would the loss in equity mean you were still out of pocket given the rise in value after you bought it?

I don't know. A big variable in here obviously is the opportunity cost of my downpayment. Even if I was making the same payments to a landlord I'd have been able to use that money over the last 6 years.

Minus the property tax which you wouldn't have had to pay, had you been a renter.

Landlords factor that in to the rent.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

i don't farm, if that is what you are asking. but hey, you could always protest and stop accepting food from kansas.

i think your employment in the military is pretty well established on this board.

last time I checked, most of KS subsidies were for corn, wheat and soybeans. Since I don't eat bread and avoid HFCS like the plague I'm sure I can live just fine on the crops grown locally, plus I'll have wine to accompany it.

well there's always ethanol from that corn too, so consider that next time you fill up.

i don't buy gas in missouri for that very reason - all gas in missouri is 10% ethanol. gas in kansas may or may not be, but if it is it's listed at the pump. missouri does not even have to tell you it's 10% ethanol as it's a state law mandating all gas is 10% ethanol.

now pass over that wine.

[mawilson 2,133]

Landlords factor that in to the rent.

The rent is a function of supply/demand - nothing to do with how much they "want" to charge you.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

yeah, but if you gave the same money to a landlord each month instead would the loss in equity mean you were still out of pocket given the rise in value after you bought it?

I don't know. A big variable in here obviously is the opportunity cost of my downpayment. Even if I was making the same payments to a landlord I'd have been able to use that money over the last 6 years.

do you think you would have spent it or invested it elsewhere? I never drank the housing koolaid, so when I moved to CA in 2005 I put money that might otherwise have gone on a downpayment into stocks. there have been some losses, but I tell myself "at least I didn't buy a house"

[tmma 467]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

I know...#######?

[mawilson 2,133]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

Indeed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Landlords factor that in to the rent.

The rent is a function of supply/demand - nothing to do with how much they "want" to charge you.

Yes, in theory. But how many landlords make a practice of renting out their units for less than their carrying costs?

[mawilson 2,133]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

I know...#######?

One could argue that it's an unfair subsidy to the homeowners that penalizes responsible renters and savers.

Landlords factor that in to the rent.

The rent is a function of supply/demand - nothing to do with how much they "want" to charge you.

Yes, in theory. But how many landlords make a practice of renting out their units for less than their carrying costs?

All of them. At least in NY and NJ, the carrying costs are always higher than the rent.

Edited July 7, 2009 by mawilson

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Can we all just quit the bickering and agree that everywhere is screwed apart from Texas?

They have Bush, so they were already screwed.

Yes, we have Bush AND I have a house that's worth more than I paid for it in a state that's not bankrupt.....

Lucky you.

Can we all just quit the bickering and agree that everywhere is screwed apart from Texas?

They have Bush, so they were already screwed.

apparently not

Apparently not what?

[tmma 467]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

I know...#######?

One could argue that it's an unfair subsidy that penalizes responsible renters and savers.

...and one could argue back that what is the point of penalizing responsible homeowners who make their payments, pay their taxes and didn't lose their houses in the ridiculously stupid, ill thought out sub prime fiasco?

It honestly just seems to me like money has to come from somewhere to help pay for all the billions borrowed....so it's clawed back from this -which seems counter productive to me as isn't the housing market a major driving force of our economy, home ownership is good for the economy-why remove a 'perk'??

Edited July 7, 2009 by tmma

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

The NJ state personal income tax mortgage interest deduction is already history.

... in NY and NJ, the carrying costs are always higher than the rent.

Not the units I see. But you're likely correct in Manhattan and the 1st ring suburbs.

do you think you would have spent it or invested it elsewhere?

I don't spend much, so likely the latter.

[tmma 467]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

The NJ state personal income tax mortgage interest deduction is already history.

... in NY and NJ, the carrying costs are always higher than the rent.

Not the units I see. But you're likely correct in Manhattan and the 1st ring suburbs.

wow. What about fed?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's always the mortgage interest tax break. That's something too..

that may be history before too long.

The NJ state personal income tax mortgage interest deduction is already history.

... in NY and NJ, the carrying costs are always higher than the rent.

Not the units I see. But you're likely correct in Manhattan and the 1st ring suburbs.

wow. What about fed?

The federal deduction still exists.

[mawilson 2,133]

...and one could argue back that what is the point of penalizing responsible homeowners who make their payments, pay their taxes and didn't lose their houses in the ridiculously stupid, ill thought out sub prime fiasco?

It honestly just seems to me like money has to come from somewhere to help pay for all the billions borrowed....so it's clawed back from this -which seems counter productive to me as isn't the housing market a major driving force of our economy, home ownership is good for the economy-why remove a 'perk'??

I'm not saying it should be removed - but it shouldn't be given to the homeowner at the expense of the renter.

Either exempt both renters and homeowners or neither.