Quote from: snapperdude on March 04, 2018, 03:18:31 PMQuote from: HermanCain on March 02, 2018, 02:54:05 PMQuote from: jinga nation on March 02, 2018, 01:03:48 PMQuote from: FINate on February 28, 2018, 08:52:27 AMQuote from: HermanCain on February 27, 2018, 10:06:31 PMQuote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908I no longer have my WSJ subscription so can't read the entire article. But aware of the pending cases. I hope some sanity prevails and hope to see CA move, even if just a little, to a bit more red just to balance things out. But this life-long (40 years) CA resident is losing patience.You can read the archived article: http://archive.is/O7PWKMy idea is that the GOP tax bill was purposefully designed to nudge blue-state liberals into the fiscal conservative camp. They have a point: why should anyone have to pay more than 10,000 at the state level, no matter your income? "blue states" shouldn't be allowed to become little nation-states, where people self-segregate into ideological camps, etc. The bill may even result in bringing people together by forcing them to be together.Seriously, you have the state of CA making "treaties" with other countries for greenhouse gases (that won't do a damn thing..)How this ties into the original post...that $4m in equity is something a lot of people have a lot of interest in taking away to generate revenue and placate a population. Which is why it may be a good idea to sell.Why should blue states have to subsidize red states? How much extra in federal tax does a state like California have to pay to cover the amount that a state like Mississippi sucks out of the federal system? You want a level playing field? How about a rule that no state can take out more than they pay in? How about any deficit state lose half of there electoral college votes each election? "California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014. Another widely-cited study from 2007 says California received only 78 cents for every dollar it paid in federal taxes.Feb 14, 2017" from wikipedia
Quote from: HermanCain on March 02, 2018, 02:54:05 PMQuote from: jinga nation on March 02, 2018, 01:03:48 PMQuote from: FINate on February 28, 2018, 08:52:27 AMQuote from: HermanCain on February 27, 2018, 10:06:31 PMQuote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908I no longer have my WSJ subscription so can't read the entire article. But aware of the pending cases. I hope some sanity prevails and hope to see CA move, even if just a little, to a bit more red just to balance things out. But this life-long (40 years) CA resident is losing patience.You can read the archived article: http://archive.is/O7PWKMy idea is that the GOP tax bill was purposefully designed to nudge blue-state liberals into the fiscal conservative camp. They have a point: why should anyone have to pay more than 10,000 at the state level, no matter your income? "blue states" shouldn't be allowed to become little nation-states, where people self-segregate into ideological camps, etc. The bill may even result in bringing people together by forcing them to be together.Seriously, you have the state of CA making "treaties" with other countries for greenhouse gases (that won't do a damn thing..)How this ties into the original post...that $4m in equity is something a lot of people have a lot of interest in taking away to generate revenue and placate a population. Which is why it may be a good idea to sell.Why should blue states have to subsidize red states? How much extra in federal tax does a state like California have to pay to cover the amount that a state like Mississippi sucks out of the federal system? You want a level playing field? How about a rule that no state can take out more than they pay in? How about any deficit state lose half of there electoral college votes each election?
Quote from: jinga nation on March 02, 2018, 01:03:48 PMQuote from: FINate on February 28, 2018, 08:52:27 AMQuote from: HermanCain on February 27, 2018, 10:06:31 PMQuote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908I no longer have my WSJ subscription so can't read the entire article. But aware of the pending cases. I hope some sanity prevails and hope to see CA move, even if just a little, to a bit more red just to balance things out. But this life-long (40 years) CA resident is losing patience.You can read the archived article: http://archive.is/O7PWKMy idea is that the GOP tax bill was purposefully designed to nudge blue-state liberals into the fiscal conservative camp. They have a point: why should anyone have to pay more than 10,000 at the state level, no matter your income? "blue states" shouldn't be allowed to become little nation-states, where people self-segregate into ideological camps, etc. The bill may even result in bringing people together by forcing them to be together.Seriously, you have the state of CA making "treaties" with other countries for greenhouse gases (that won't do a damn thing..)How this ties into the original post...that $4m in equity is something a lot of people have a lot of interest in taking away to generate revenue and placate a population. Which is why it may be a good idea to sell.
Quote from: FINate on February 28, 2018, 08:52:27 AMQuote from: HermanCain on February 27, 2018, 10:06:31 PMQuote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908I no longer have my WSJ subscription so can't read the entire article. But aware of the pending cases. I hope some sanity prevails and hope to see CA move, even if just a little, to a bit more red just to balance things out. But this life-long (40 years) CA resident is losing patience.You can read the archived article: http://archive.is/O7PWK
Quote from: HermanCain on February 27, 2018, 10:06:31 PMQuote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908I no longer have my WSJ subscription so can't read the entire article. But aware of the pending cases. I hope some sanity prevails and hope to see CA move, even if just a little, to a bit more red just to balance things out. But this life-long (40 years) CA resident is losing patience.
Quote from: FINate on February 27, 2018, 07:58:41 PMBeing pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.Here is an opinion piece (probably influenced by the sweet, sweet voice of Rupert Murdoch) about what is going on as we speak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-may-rescue-blue-state-finances-1519594908
Being pedantic here, but the exclusion of reassessment for RE transfers between parent and child is the result of Prop 58 and Prop 193 for grandparent to grandchild, not Prop 13. IMHO it's one of the most egregious and inequitable aspects of the property tax regime in a state that claims to be progressive. The wealthy benefit most, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, past down by generation, in perpetuity. That said, I don't hate you for it. Play the game well even if the rules are screwy.If after all expenses and vacancies you can get more than you would elsewhere then sure, why not. My only hesitation (which you mention) would be having so much specific risk. Housing values have passed the previous peak in many areas, which isn't predictive of the future but worth noting. It's always different this time :) So you either make peace with the tradeoff of higher specific risk and higher returns, or you sell and diversify which means slightly less risk and slightly less return. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff implicit in every investment - there's no free lunch.If true that you'd be able to cash out the $4M free and clear without cap gains taxes then I would be very tempted by this. The California budget is highly dependent on the highest income earners and there are some huge unfunded pension liabilities looming (worse than the official figures which assume overly optimistic investment returns). Personally, I'd be interested in diversifying out before the next recession when RE prices drop and the state comes looking for more revenue. Whatever you decide, talk to a tax expert first.
