Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are buying a house to live in, and you are not buying it as a real estate investment, then I know the answer to your question. The best time to buy a house is when:
1) The house you are longing for is on the market,
2) You can afford it, and
3) You are able to move to the location of the house at this time.
LIFE IS SHORT. If you find a house that you love and can afford, I'd say "Go for it!"
Thank you. That clarifies things in my head. I AM looking for a home, not a r.e. investment. This process has been difficult for me (the market has been awful), involving a move, a rental, dogs, my "life" in storage. Then this was added to the mix. So I didn't know what to make of it.
You are right! I continue looking, and buy when the right thing comes along that I can afford. Thanks!
Anyone ready to buy cheap properties after all those homeowners decide to leave the country when their candidate does not win the presidential election (jk)? So many have claimed they would move away. Maybe they were not property owners though.
Back on track? This thread was started as a bit of a joke, since so many had claimed they would sell and move to another country if their candidate did not win. But the reality is, the USA appears to be stronger than any one person/party in the white house, so I'm guessing nearly all will stay to see how the next few years play out.
Thank you. That clarifies things in my head. I AM looking for a home, not a r.e. investment. This process has been difficult for me (the market has been awful), involving a move, a rental, dogs, my "life" in storage. Then this was added to the mix. So I didn't know what to make of it.
You are right! I continue looking, and buy when the right thing comes along that I can afford. Thanks!
There is one other factor to consider explicitly. Based on your description, it sounds like your current situation ("difficult") is also quite stressful.
Stress kills.
OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but also consider your personal health (both physical and mental). It is quite stressful to live in uncertainty, and quite stressful to live out of a storage locker. Removing that stress may well be good for your health.
The progressives always threaten to move away if they don't have things go their way. Just like a child throwing a tantrum. Maybe it works on their mother, but really, nobody is going to change their vote to keep them because nobody cares if they leave.
I suspect their emigration plans are safe, though, because hillary will win this election.
They never actually carry through on their threats (attempt at extortion?). If all the people who swore that they would move to Canada if Bush won had actually left, half the country would have been empty.
Or maybe they tried to go but discovered that Canada didn't want them.
Why do the progressives talk about moving to Canada but don't talk about moving to Mexico???
Wrong, President Kennedy greatly reduce taxes on the wealthy, which set in motion a great boom in the economy, more jobs, and more tax money raised. The wealthy invest the money they save when taxes are reduced. Investing the money caused more jobs to be created, and the country prospered greatly. And there have been tax cuts for the wealthy since then, that increased jobs and the economy every time.
That is incorrect. Trying to rewrite history again, I see.
Kennedy had an all-encompassing plan that including SPENDING and CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE WEALTHY, focusing on the middle class.
If you want to go back to the tax rates of 1961, that's fine with me. That would mean INCREASING TAX RATES ON THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHY TO 70%.
What Kennedy got Congress to agree to:
* INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE (increasing expendable income for the working class, which spurs the economy)
* EXPAND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (spurring the economy by keeping $ in the hands of the working class)
* BOOST SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS to encourage workers to retire earlier
* SPENDING MORE FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION (spurring the economy)
After his assassination, Congress approved the following parts of his economic plan:
* DECREASE TOP TAX RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM 91% TO 70% ( income of $200,000 or joint filers earning in excess of $400,000 in 1964 dollars) (The rate for the super wealthy remained 91%) (the current top rate is 35%, plus increased loopholes and exemptions)
* DECREASED CORPORATE TOP RATE FROM 52% TO 48% (it's now 39%)
* CREATED MINIMUM STANDARD DEDUCTION (tax cut for the average wage earner)
The super wealthy tax rate remained at 91%. Kennedy also increased enforcement, cut down on loopholes, and cut down on using foreign subsidiaries for tax evasion.
Taxes for the average wage earner were deceased by about 5%, to about 30-35% marginal tax rate (before the increased deduction and other deductions added).
It was an all-encompassing program. However, the economy was already doing well. So it's hard to gauge the exact effect of this program, except it seems agreed that it lengthened the good economic times.engthened the good economic times.
Taxes are so much lower now, that there's not a lot of wiggle room for the country to maintain its revenue. The top rate is now about HALF of the GDP of the country than it was in 1964.
I personally think Donald be good for real estate biz.
Why???
Economic mood.
Especially if he can bring the jobs and with cutting taxes will make economy boom.
Plus.. US still have room to grow especially with home prices (not that I want a bubble.. but still have room to grow). Eg. China peeps making $1k a month paying $300 k plus for ave apartments (shoddily built ones).. or Canada.. lower than US average salary with over priced RE like $500k on up for average home prices..
So US can see more growth in RE n economy in my opinion. Big help in growing our country.
You mean just like YOU thought these last 8 yearshey ??
I can only speak for myself but you should know I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian by definition. I supported Obama over McCain his first term and was disappointed. Supported Romney over Obama last election. I tend to side with the person who I feel will do the best job for country, not a ore-defined label attached to a party affiliation. Frankly, established politicians of all parties continue to disappoint me.
This time around I supported Gary Johnson but would have picked Trump over HRC. I won't get into the reasons but I didn't judge HRC or Trump supporters. I support people making educated decisions for themselves. If your philosophy is different than mine I'm cool with that as long as you arrived at it by thinking it through. Obama did some good things in office but he also did some things I don't agree with.
So no, not like I thought the last 8 years. But thank you for proving my point. Truth is we don't know how DT will do over the next 4 years but I thought he made good statements last night and seems to be making wise decisions. Just like we didn't know in advance how Obama would do but many voted for him because they felt he was the best option.
Reducing taxes absolutely results in increased spending - or at a MINIMUM - the reduction of debt, which consequently frees up capital to allow new - you guessed it - spending!
I am not one of the "super rich" but I fall into the highest tax bracket (SCorporation pass through taxes) and I can tell you that I, and nearly everyone I know like me would spend more if we had more. I use set formulas - save x%, spend x% I have a list a mile long of things I want, or that my wife wants.
My taxes went up substantially under Obama, and has absolutely resulted in decreased spending...you can see it on my credit card...it tracks my spending month/month and when taxes went from 35% to 39.6% my spending was reduced by about 11%
Taxes have a direct impact on discretionary spending, especially those of us making quarterly tax payments....we see the difference in spending MUCH sooner than other tax payers. About the only people a lower tax bracket does not increase spending on may be the UBER wealthy - I am talking about people with net worth and cash over 100,000,000. They may not notice a $1,000,000 difference in taxes annually. For me, the difference is in the vacation we take, the furniture we delay buying...In my case, I drove my Truck an additional 4 years longer than I ever intended to....
My reduced spending hurts the economy...giving it to the government is very inefficient, our local economy may be lucky to see 20% of it back...Its especially bad because a great deal of our tax dollars end up over seas.
Bottom line, is that a reduction in taxes increases discretionary spending. PERIOD. To say it does not, is a lie.
Reducing taxes absolutely results in increased spending - or at a MINIMUM - the reduction of debt, which consequently frees up capital to allow new - you guessed it - spending!
I am not one of the "super rich" but I fall into the highest tax bracket (SCorporation pass through taxes) and I can tell you that I, and nearly everyone I know like me would spend more if we had more. I use set formulas - save x%, spend x% I have a list a mile long of things I want, or that my wife wants.
My taxes went up substantially under Obama, and has absolutely resulted in decreased spending...you can see it on my credit card...it tracks my spending month/month and when taxes went from 35% to 39.6% my spending was reduced by about 11%
Taxes have a direct impact on discretionary spending, especially those of us making quarterly tax payments....we see the difference in spending MUCH sooner than other tax payers. About the only people a lower tax bracket does not increase spending on may be the UBER wealthy - I am talking about people with net worth and cash over 100,000,000. They may not notice a $1,000,000 difference in taxes annually. For me, the difference is in the vacation we take, the furniture we delay buying...In my case, I drove my Truck an additional 4 years longer than I ever intended to....
My reduced spending hurts the economy...giving it to the government is very inefficient, our local economy may be lucky to see 20% of it back...Its especially bad because a great deal of our tax dollars end up over seas.
Bottom line, is that a reduction in taxes increases discretionary spending. PERIOD. To say it does not, is a lie.
Trickle down voodoo economics do not work. The ones getting rich off of that are the corporations that are already rich and Wall Street.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
