Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (12590)	8/18/2003 11:06:21 AM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

<<Real Estate Investors' artificially good return is due to prop 13. Not due to market capital conditions, but due to false propping thru tax manipulations, all on the backs of NCGs (new college graduates.)>> Amy, I've been an NCG (new college graduate), and I have one recent NCG now (who is productively working in another city), and am paying the tuition bills/living expenses for another soon-to-be NCG. If your assumptions are based your view of what NCGs should or should not expect in this economy, no wonder the Californians are mourning their alleged plight. For crying out loud, every person needs to find his way in this world without government help, without throwing out the state governor, without relying on tax policy to make everything more comfortable for themselves, and without blaming the smart folks who are holding onto properties on speculation of present and future return. This is capitalism. It's been around a long time. Sorry, but I just don't get it. (And believe me, I'm in a so-far losing battle with a younger son majoring in political science at a Southern state university who is traveling an attitude and achievement path which sounds waaayyyyyy too much like the attitudes being expressed by some people on this thread. Maybe I'm too personally involved to understand and agree with what you are saying, but I'm hard-pressed to start tolerating it without comment to the contrary. My biggest nightmare should probably be that younger son moves to California and expects his life to be in order when he gets there. It won't be any more in order there than anyplace else. And he'll be calling home for money on his cell phone (billed to parents, of course), just like he has for the past several years. <GGG>)

To: Amy J who wrote (12590)	8/18/2003 7:08:10 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Hi AmyJ, I heard on one of the talking heads shows yesterday that if the state of CA defaults, then "permanently frozen property tax rates" (that had to be prop 13 they were referring to) will be abolished. The commentator acted like these state laws regarding taxes could and would be overturned in the case of a default. What is your sense of this? I am not ruling out a default, that is for sure.

To: Amy J who wrote (12590)	8/18/2003 10:16:47 PM
From: David Jones	Respond to of 306849

.....Real Estate Investors' artificially good return is due to prop 13. Not due to market capital conditions,.... Your just plan wrong. Every article, every damn one "and Less and others posted a TON" posted here pre the recall issue has pointed out that LOW interest rates are key in keeping the real estate market going. Nothing was ever said about Prop 13 not a one. Plus you leave out he entire rise in prices across the U.S. Did Prop 13 cause their prices to rise also? .....The government gives an incentive to Investors for owning more homes than one. This reduces available supply of home ownership...... Wrong again. This increases the desire for home ownership and the market responds with more. Home ownership here in Calif and across the U.S as a percentage is at an all time high. .....A business would have to pay a NCG approximately $150,000, if they wanted to purchase a house here. You know of any business in the world that can pay NCG's $150,000...help me out here..... Where here's Calif? I'm still looking at places for 400k. If one financed the whole 400 you need around 90k a year to keep costs at a third of income. That's not all that much when you consider that most households today are double income. ....They can probably get 100,000 new units simply by getting rid of prop 13 for investors who consume more than one home here and do not reside in it..... Now your just PROBABLY being silly. .....Since when should Investors be treated better than NCGs?...... Sense when did oranges become apples?