KC Scott wrote:I'll only speak for myself here, but yea our financial situation was a major consideration for when we had kids. Most intelligent people do consider this before they procreate.
As for Mortgage, it's no surprise you don't deduct your interest - you probably don't have enough deduction to itemize. I can write checks tomorrow to pay off both properties but since the interest rate is only 3.75 and I make more than that on my investments why would I? Add in the tax write off and it's a no brainer.
of course one's financial situation should be taken into account when chosing to have kids. My point is, the kid deduction likely doesn't affect your overall financial situation much, especially when you are mr moneybags. As for you not paying down a 3.75% debt, sure, that makes some sense given the gubmint's dangling of the write off carrot. I just think it is bad tax policy. It all comes down to not showing preferential treatment to ANYBODY. Not sure how many more ways I can get accross my point. You wouldn't need to drop 800 bucks at your tax dudes office, if they just simplified the fukking thing.
The part about suburbs turning transient must have flown right over your head. Rents have gone up - I'm getting $1,450 a month for mine now - ovr 10% more than 2 yrs. ago.
no, it didn't and rack you for being a real estate investor. I need to get off my ass and do the same soon.
When it comes to property values, what we should have is steady valuations that basically keep pace with inflation.\
All supply and demand sucky. Right now there's still way too much Supply. Your suggestion to keep property values tied to inflation only occurs with Govt intervention. Why do you hate Capitalism?
the bubble was not simple supply and demand. it was gubmint sticking it's nose in by promising to back all manner of risky financing. prices went to 500K, because people that had no fukking bidness carrying that mortgage were approved by banks who were playing with our tax money.
there will be some that opt out who's investments go south or blow it on hookers and coke. This would be enough for a subsistence existence for them.
Why would we subsidize them? What's wrong with letting them die instead of a further burden on society?
i'm with you, but, most of society isn't.
If they didn't have insurance/the means to pay out of pocket, they go to the really barebones gubmint run mill. I would staff it with health professionals that had their edumacashums subsidized.
Which we would still be paying for via our taxes. Just brilliant
yup,but, it would be better than them having what is essentially the same service as us payign customers
what a bb code cluster fukk that's turned into.