The mechanic has 5 bays and 5 cars were parked inside (I was one of the lucky few), 35+ were outside and got jacked. Its pretty bizarre driving around here near Boerne, TX and at least 1/2 the cars look like their ex-GF took a baseball bat to them. I was sitting in a traffic at a red light just looking around at all these busted up cars. Never seen anything like it.
Random question... Was going to install some pendant lighting over the island in the kitchen. According to my solid electrician research on youtube there are usually three wires: hot, cold, ground. Hooking the pendant light up *appears* to be as easy as connecting the appropriate wires to each other. The rough electrical in the ceiling has 3 wires that are all the same color and the pendant light is the same. How do I know which wire is which without being able to rely on color? Do I need a special device to determine what each wire is? Any tips for a novice electrician installing pendant lighting?
You should get a volt meter. Cheap one will do. Such as http://www.amazon.com/Volmate-Digital-Voltmeter-Ohmmeter-Multimeter/dp/B00TWTLWT8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1460716425&sr=8-2&keywords=volt meter You should trace the wiring to determine the ground and neutral. With the above volt meter, you can test continuity, so (after flipping the breaker of course) you can tie 2 of the three wires together at one end, and test continuity between the two on the other end to start to narrow down which wire is hot, neutral, and ground. Mark the wires once you figure it out. It would be easy to find the hot wire with power connected, using the volt meter. (black lead on ground or neutral and red lead on hot wire should give you a reading of ~+120VAC) I'm not sure how important it is to differentiate between ground and neutral, but I assume it is. A more accomplished electrician might be able to answer if and why.
They're the best company out there to me at least. They find coverage for everything and pay well. I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to get USAA.
Take this with a grain of salt because plumbing is definetely at the bottom of my handy man skill list. If I was having sewer gas smells, or any bad smells my first place I would look is any plumbing traps. Like this: That's there purpose, the water keeps a seal so that no sewer gas can come back into the house. If they are not used often though that water can evaporate and lose it's seal. Think that is the most frequent reason for it but they might lose water for other reasons too. Worth checking out though.
I can't get them or I would have them myself. My grandpa was military on dads side but no idea if he ever had it or not. Anyway I get an employee discount here so it's not bad
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/15/homeownership-no-longer-a-tax-break.html It may be yet another reason why younger Americans are choosing to rent: Buying a home is unlikely to offer them any tax break. That is thanks to near-record low mortgage rates and an increase in the standard deduction. Add them up, and the math doesn't compute for savings. "It has removed one of the main reasons people had urgency to buy," noted John Burns of California-based John Burns Real Estate Consulting. "High rent should be a kick in the pants, lowest interest rates should be a kick in the pants, but I think if you were getting a tax break too, I'm sure we'd see more entry-level buyers." The standard marital deduction has risen from $1,300 in 1972 to $12,600 today, meaning that the first $12,600 of itemized deductions has no benefit to consumers. According to Burns' analysis, a typical first-time homebuyer, financing 95 percent or less of a median-priced U.S. home (around $200,000) pays less than $12,000 in mortgage interest and property taxes annually. That is not enough to hit the itemization level. Even with other deductions that bring the taxpayer over the $12,600 limit, the tax savings are minimal. "It's interesting, nobody is mentioning tax savings as a reason to buy anymore in focus groups," added Burns. Getty Images The mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest federal expenditures at about $70 billion a year, but it does very little to boost homeownership because it favors wealthier buyers, purchasing more expensive homes. In 2012, 77 percent of the benefits went to homeowners with incomes above $100,000, while close to half of homeowners with mortgages, most of them middle- and lower-income families, receive no benefit from the deduction, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
^ I agree with that. Lame as it is to say this, but Millennials are pretty damn bad at figuring out finances and figuring out what is in their best interest. Tax breaks for younger buyers would put a quantifiable monetary value on buying your first home. More people with quality loans in the market, the better. Also, Student loan debt is really fucking with people.
Yea don't do that that's a terrible idea. If you look on Home Depot's website for the product you want, it will tell you which stores have it and how many they have in stock. Or if they don't you can order it online and they'll ship it to the store for free.
It's weird, it seems like most stores have pulled it from their stores and is only available limited online but mostly from landscaping companies. Did find it @ Home Depot online http://www.homedepot.com/p/Easy-Gardener-40-in-Old-Town-Metal-Lawn-Edging-8940/203612669
I've never understood the renting is better thing. You build 0 equity and if I was to rent a comparable house as mine right now i would be spending in rent about 30% more than my current mortgage + insurance as I am sure is the case in other areas as well. I guess if you know you are no staying put for long that is one thing but other than that, I don't get the arguement unless you bring other things into consideration.
Of course other things are involved. It basically comes down to homes really are bad investment vehicles.
Aren't millennials the best generation so far at saving money compared to other generations at this stage in their lives?
Clearly they would be better off not saving and buying more home than they can really afford like their parents did. Because tax deductions.
I know they are bad investment vehicles but in most case they are investment vehicles. renting is not an investment vehicle and you will never see a penny of that money back, except security deposit.
I agree. I also know many people who are spending a few hundred more in rent than it would cost them for a mortgage payment, maybe my friends are just idiots. Idk
Lot of ancillary costs that can eat up the benefits of buying vs renting real quick. it's not an easy answer either way and is mostly dependent on your individual situation + housing market
Yeah you won't see that money back, but you could put your downpayment in an actual investment vehicle so it's earning value. Even with putting 20% down and the current low interest rates, it's going to take you nearly 10 years before even half of your monthly house payment actually goes toward equity in the home. And i'm ignoring home insurance and taxes in that calculation.
No doubt some people just rent too expensive of a place that makes it a poor decision. But as lyrtch said there are probably other costs that make that number closer than you think.
Not really. You only get to write off the amount that is greater than the standard deduction. Paying 6,300 or 12,600 in interest just to write off a couple more grand isn't a good deal when a renter can write off that $6,300 or $12,600 with no actual cost to them.
i bought in june of 2013 just had my place appraised last week so i could have PMI removed 22% increase smug
Your argument against buying and obtaining equity was that you're just paying mostly interest. In reality, you're gaining equity and getting a tax deduction in excess of the standard deduction. The renter is only getting the standard deduction without gaining any equity. There is benefit to buying that you refuse to acknowledge because your mind is made up on the topic. I also do agree home ownership isn't the most financial savvy decision for everyone, but you routinely take that way too far.
That wasn't my argument. My comments were aimed at the notion, "you're never going to get a penny back from rent like you do with a mortgage." I was pointing out the equity gain isn't as big as assumed. It doesn't seem like you're really thinking this one out. The equity and tax deduction come from separate dollars. The equity would be better compared to the value gained from investing the downpayment and any costs savings from renting.
Again, you're set in your way of thinking. Why would I compare up to 250k of tax excluded profits from the potential sale of my home to whatever investment vehicle you choose, which will be heavily taxed (assuming it's even profitable)? As I've said, there are different "right" answers for people in different situations and there's also a whole lot of uncertainty.
I'm set in my way of thinking by pointing out the flaw in your argument? I see you're just going to make snarky jabs and pretend that gives your argument validity. You're going to ignore the 250k of tax excluded profits because history shows that's not going to happen unless you sell your home 20+ years down the road and by then all of your "profit" will have been eaten up by inflation. And i'm not even including the thousands of dollars you paid in interest in the process. Sounds like you're trying to argue hypothetical outliers or outliers in general. You don't see me arguing someone should rent and be the lucky person who invested in yahoo then cashed out before the dot com bust. When you start looking at aggregate data you're arguing a losing argument against math and facts. But feel free to make another snarky jab.
For every article that says it's a better financial decision to rent, there's an article or two that says the opposite. Which is exact my point - you're painting with way too broad of a brush.
Whenever you argue with watson on this, please remember that each and every time we have this argument, he ignores the fact that building equity +investing is better than renting plus investing. He also proved my point by buying a house. While he still invests.
But i'm not. There are many reasons to buy a home, it being a better financial decision than renting is not one of them.
It's unfortunate we can't have actual rational conversations on here. It's a shame you're trying to still trying to make a fallacious argument where somehow the person buying can reuse dollars he's already spent.
Whatever. You do exactly what I say is best. Build equity while still investing. How do my nuts taste?
Yes, but only to eventually use it as a rental property. It's one of those outlier events that doesn't make a good argument for the general public.
but I have less money to invest because I bought the place. It blows my mind you can't comprehend that.