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: mishedlo who wrote (69408)	12/26/2006 12:24:25 PM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

'Just because a law has little effect when it was passed does not mean it will not have an impact if rescinded.' The timing of said laws is critical. (e.g. capital gain tax cut). As are other cofactors that can exaggerate the effect well past that which was first intended. (e.g. losening of credit standards, low rates). It appears that the whole chain of events since 1997 needs to be disassembled, one way or another. The government seems hell bent on perpetuating their bubble.

To: mishedlo who wrote (69408)	12/26/2006 12:30:01 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 306849

tax consequences are ALWAYS a significant element in making a financial decision, ask the homie shorts on this thread who decided to cover in december to take advantage of any tax advantage for 2006<g> just from memory, i think the LTCG tax in 1997 was 20%....so do the basic math...20% of $500k is $100.... not exactly small change, and certainly enough to be a large factor in deciding whether to sell or stay put the only way to put this discussion to bed (and even then i'm sure someone will find a way to argue the point) is to look at data that would reflect the number of homes sold on a percentage basis after 1997 to the statistical norm that was in effect before the law change the so called 'herd mentality' was basically in stampede mode with the $500k cap gain exemption..... unbridled as it were, with the exemption 'bit' removed <edit> oh and btw, one of the reasons i think it is so difficult to have a precise grasp on the effect of the 1997 law is because of the way that ingenious people find to 'game the system' And your actual habitation of the home doesn't have to be sequential, notes Mark Luscombe, lawyer, accountant and principal tax analyst at CCH Inc., a Riverwoods, Ill.-based provider of tax law information and software. The IRS lets you aggregate your time living in the house to meet the two-year residency requirement. "Generally, if you owned and used the home as your main home for periods totaling at least two years within five years ending on the date of these sale, you're eligible for the exclusion," says RIA's Trinz. "You look back at the last five years. Ownership and use may be at two different times. This would apply if you owned a home for five years, but didn't use it as your primary residence for that full period. For the first three years, you rented it and then moved into it as your main home for the final two before you sold it." But you don't even have to live in the house at the date of sale. The flexibility of the use test means you could live in your house for a year, rent it for two, move back in for another year and rent it again the year before you sell. Since during those five years you owned and lived in the property for two years, you meet the use and ownership tests. Finally, while technically there's no limit on the number of homes you can sell and reap tax-free gain, each sale must be at least two years apart. That still leaves you room to make some money on several properties. You can sell your residence this year, pocket any gain within the tax limits and buy a new residence. Two years later, you can do the same thing, again and again every two years. There even are situations where owners of multiple properties might be able to double up on the tax-free gain. "There might be instances where you sell your primary residence and then establish your vacation home as your primary home for a couple of years and then sell that home," says Trinz. "Empty nesters who have a large suburban home could move into a vacation home at the beach and then as they get older move to a residential facility so they can sell both the homes and not have any taxable gains. bankrate.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (69408)	12/26/2006 8:04:25 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Respond to of 306849

Hey dude, I just found out my landlord is raising my rent 15% after only 1 year. Once again so much for your ()&^%&*^$%^%$ deflation. You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna take the bonus I got in 2004, 2005 and this year and I'm going to trot down and buy myself a house. Because if he can raise his rent 15%, and I can buy a house 15% off and 1% lower rate than last year, then why not? Or are 15% rental increases part of the defintion of deflation? I betcha that didn't happen in Japan.