Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>
> <snipped to make some pussies happy, here.>
>
>>>> Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>>>> afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>>>> 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.
>>>
>>> 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
>>> (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
>>> doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
>>> to PI_I.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
>> your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
>> thousand dollars?
>
> Double those numbers but, yes.
>
>>
>> We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
>> 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
>> 3 years.
>
> What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?
>>
>> And these numbers are may be skewed.
>>
>> But
>> Below is fact.
>>
>>
>> A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
>> $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
>> plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.
>
> As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
> It's only the tax part that's increasing.
>
> OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
> (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
> total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
> increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
> house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
> same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
> owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
> their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
> shape without the home.

That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.

You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.

Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.

Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>>>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>>>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>>>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>>>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>>>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
>>>understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
>>>complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
>>>committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
>>>an increased budget.
>>
>>My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
>>that's "fixed", not the budgets.
> The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
>dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.

Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
difference.

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>> emergency instead of 3?
>>
>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>
>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>
>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>insurance, and so on.
>
>Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>> emergency instead of 3?
>>
>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>
>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>
>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>insurance, and so on.

Considering that education is >2/3 of the budget and the education
being provided, it's not easy to say we're getting our money's worth.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:

<snipped to make some pussies happy, here.>

>>> Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>>> afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>>> 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.
>>
>> 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
>> (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
>> doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
>> to PI_I.
>>
>
>
>Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
>your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
>thousand dollars?

Double those numbers but, yes.

>
>We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
>50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
>3 years.

What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?
>
>And these numbers are may be skewed.
>
>But
>Below is fact.
>
>
>A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
>$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
>plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.

As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.

>
>
>And if you have any doubts google the complaints Fort Bend county
>residents are screaming about concerning raising property values. It
>has got the State representatives attention.
>
>Texas can increase values up to 10% each year and they typically catch
>up if they missed a year, they can go up 10% for each year that they did
>not.
>

[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
> emergency instead of 3?
>
> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>
>
>In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
>understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
>complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
>committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
>an increased budget.

My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
that's "fixed", not the budgets.

In article <cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this
> >> >>>>>>>>>> project. ^º^
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany?
> >> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.machinio.com/listings/15189411-2014-felder-cf-741-combined-machine-in-lohmar-germany
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I love those videos
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
> >> >>>>>>>> pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I vote for "not cheap".
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
> >> >>>>>>> higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
> >> >>>>>>> service when needed.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
> >> >>>>>> using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
> >> >>>>>> to pay for".
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
> >> >>>>>> "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
> >> >>>>>> "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Correct
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Buying and affording are very different animals.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
> >> >>>>> cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
> >> >>>> don't have an issue with mortgages.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
> >> >>> large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
> >> >>> qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
> >> >>> happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
> >> >>> all went to hell in a hand basket.
> >> >>
> >> >> If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
> >> >> job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
> >> >> were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
> >> >> at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
> >> >>>> had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
> >> >>>> didn't do so well, of course.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
> >> >>> sell in 2008.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
> >> >> did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
> >> >> on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
> >> >> paid for it).
> >> >>
> >> >>> In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
> >> >>> and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
> >> >>> Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
> >> >>> are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
> >> >>> it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
> >> >>> homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
> >> >>> have a higher rate.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
> >> >> tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
> >> >> Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
> >> >> way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
> >> >> to live where it's more expensive than necessary.
> >> >
> >> >Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
> >> >than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
> >> >in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
> >> >home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
> >> >services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
> >> >the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.
> >>
> >> Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
> >> than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
> >> government services than I.
> >
> >Two years ago I was living on food stamps and
> >half time minimum wage. Today I'm living on a
> >full time quant's salary which means I pay more
> >in income tax than my entire compensation in the
> >last engineering job I had.
>
> What's a "quant"? Your last engineering job must have sucked. ;-)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_anal
yst>.

Suffice it to say that it pays a _lot_ more than
engineering, it's a _much_ better work
environment, and if somebody had told me 40
years ago that this kind of work existed I would
have never become an engineer.

> >I don't begrudge the services rendered to poor
> >people nor do I feel that taxing them further
> >into poverty serves any purpose.
>
> Not to the point.

Well actually, since the argument seems to be
that they use more services so they should pay
more tax, it kind of _is_ the point.

> >I'd rather pay less tax but not if it means
> >imposing taxes on the poor that they do not have
> >the means to pay.
> >
> >Forcing someone to choose between food, shelter,
> >and taxes is rather sadistic IMO.
>
> The level of taxation on everyone is sadistic but, again, irrelevant.

I don't find it at all sadistic. Not at my
level. What's sadistic is--you know those guys
who stand in line outside Home Depot hoping for
a day job? Well if they're honest about their
taxes then they have to pay 15 percent up front
in "self employment tax" before they even get
started on income tax. That's why they like to
get paid cash under the table--there's no paper
trail.

Nobody should be taxed into poverty and nobody
who is already there should be taxed further
into it. Doing so isn't addressing any real
social problem.

> >> >Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
> >> >economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
> >> >did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
> >> >vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.
> >>
> >> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
> >> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
> >> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
> >> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
> >> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
> >> by the "needs" of the community.
> >
> >The "needs" of the community can include quite a
> >lot of cruft that could be done away with.
>
> Sing it, brother! Though saying it doesn't change reality.
>
> >> People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to
> >> absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a
> >> reasonable expectation.
> >
> >Move to where?
>
> Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working,
> no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion.
> I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again
> because there will be no need.

Where is the job though? And while the mortgage
may be predicated on working, that doesn't mean
that it's more than the rent would be if one
moved.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this
>> >>>>>>>>>> project. ^º^
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany?
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.machinio.com/listings/15189411-2014-felder-cf-741-combined-machine-in-lohmar-germany
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I love those videos
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
>> >>>>>>>> pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I vote for "not cheap".
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
>> >>>>>>> higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
>> >>>>>>> service when needed.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
>> >>>>>> using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
>> >>>>>> to pay for".
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
>> >>>>>> "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
>> >>>>>> "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Correct
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Buying and affording are very different animals.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
>> >>>>> cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
>> >>>> don't have an issue with mortgages.
>> >>>
>> >>> Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
>> >>> large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
>> >>> qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
>> >>> happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
>> >>> all went to hell in a hand basket.
>> >>
>> >> If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
>> >> job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
>> >> were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
>> >> at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.
>> >>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
>> >>>> had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
>> >>>> didn't do so well, of course.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
>> >>> sell in 2008.
>> >>
>> >> I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
>> >> did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
>> >> on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
>> >> paid for it).
>> >>
>> >>> In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
>> >>> and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
>> >>> Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
>> >>> are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
>> >>> it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
>> >>> homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
>> >>> have a higher rate.
>> >>
>> >> Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
>> >> tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
>> >> Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
>> >> way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
>> >> to live where it's more expensive than necessary.
>> >
>> >Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
>> >than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
>> >in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
>> >home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
>> >services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
>> >the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.
>>
>> Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
>> than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
>> government services than I.
>
>Two years ago I was living on food stamps and
>half time minimum wage. Today I'm living on a
>full time quant's salary which means I pay more
>in income tax than my entire compensation in the
>last engineering job I had.

What's a "quant"? Your last engineering job must have sucked. ;-)

>I don't begrudge the services rendered to poor
>people nor do I feel that taxing them further
>into poverty serves any purpose.

Not to the point.

>I'd rather pay less tax but not if it means
>imposing taxes on the poor that they do not have
>the means to pay.
>
>Forcing someone to choose between food, shelter,
>and taxes is rather sadistic IMO.

The level of taxation on everyone is sadistic but, again, irrelevant.
>
>> >Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
>> >economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
>> >did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
>> >vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.
>>
>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>> by the "needs" of the community.
>
>The "needs" of the community can include quite a
>lot of cruft that could be done away with.

Sing it, brother! Though saying it doesn't change reality.

>> People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to
>> absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a
>> reasonable expectation.
>
>Move to where?

Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working,
no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion.
I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again
because there will be no need.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this
>>>>>>>>>>>> project. ^º^
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.machinio.com/listings/15189411-2014-felder-cf-741-combined-machine-in-lohmar-germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I love those videos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
>>>>>>>>>> pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I vote for "not cheap".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
>>>>>>>>> higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
>>>>>>>>> service when needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
>>>>>>>> using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
>>>>>>>> to pay for".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
>>>>>>>> "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
>>>>>>>> "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buying and affording are very different animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
>>>>>>> cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
>>>>>> don't have an issue with mortgages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
>>>>> large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
>>>>> qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
>>>>> happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
>>>>> all went to hell in a hand basket.
>>>>
>>>> If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
>>>> job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
>>>> were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
>>>> at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
>>>>>> had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
>>>>>> didn't do so well, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
>>>>> sell in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
>>>> did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
>>>> on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
>>>> paid for it).
>>>>
>>>>> In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
>>>>> and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
>>>>> Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
>>>>> are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
>>>>> it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
>>>>> homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
>>>>> have a higher rate.
>>>>
>>>> Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
>>>> tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
>>>> Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
>>>> way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
>>>> to live where it's more expensive than necessary.
>>>
>>> Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
>>> than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
>>> in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
>>> home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
>>> services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
>>> the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.
>>
>> Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
>> than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
>> government services than I.
>
>Not here, those taxes are all collected to equally supply services to
>the land owners.

You don't think their kids go to school, their families protected by
police and fire, or colllect welfare?
>
>>>
>>> Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
>>> economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
>>> did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
>>> vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.
>>
>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>
>> People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to
>> absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a
>> reasonable expectation.
>
>Well look at this way. Mr. Jones lived in an apartment most of his
>life, he suddenly qualifies for a 3600 sq ft home because of the
>"government guaranteed loans". He is married and the kids are gone
>before he bought the house. He was so marginal on being able to afford
>the house in the first place that now he cannot make payments as the
>escrow has gone up as a direct result of the home increasing in value
>30% in the last 5 years. There was a reason he was in an apartment most
>of his adult life, and not the government has provided a way for him to
>live in a neighborhood that he would not normally have been able to
>afford. He is not moving out until he is forced out. See where I'm
>going here... ;~)

Government guarantees (ick) or not, PITI of 30% is about max. The
problem isn't the house but the cars and credit card debt *after* the
home purchase. That's a choice.
>
>
>>>
>>> This has have happened now instead of then because of rising costs to
>>> maintain the houses and pay taxes owed. Now the homes need to be
>>> maintained and that expense adds.
>>
>> I'm not following you. The costs today are similar to the costs ten
>> years ago (pre-crash).
>
>Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>
>
>In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
>understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
>complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
>committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
>an increased budget.
Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. ^º^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.machinio.com/listings/15189411-2014-felder-cf-741-combined-machine-in-lohmar-germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I love those videos
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I vote for "not cheap".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
>>>>>>>>>> higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
>>>>>>>>>> service when needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
>>>>>>>>> using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
>>>>>>>>> to pay for".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
>>>>>>>>> "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
>>>>>>>>> "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Buying and affording are very different animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
>>>>>>>> cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
>>>>>>> don't have an issue with mortgages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
>>>>>> large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
>>>>>> qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
>>>>>> happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
>>>>>> all went to hell in a hand basket.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
>>>>> job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
>>>>> were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
>>>>> at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
>>>>>>> had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
>>>>>>> didn't do so well, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
>>>>>> sell in 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
>>>>> did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
>>>>> on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
>>>>> paid for it).
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
>>>>>> and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
>>>>>> Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
>>>>>> are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
>>>>>> it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
>>>>>> homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
>>>>>> have a higher rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
>>>>> tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
>>>>> Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
>>>>> way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
>>>>> to live where it's more expensive than necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
>>>> than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
>>>> in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
>>>> home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
>>>> services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
>>>> the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.
>>>
>>> Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
>>> than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
>>> government services than I.
>>
>> Not here, those taxes are all collected to equally supply services to
>> the land owners.
>
> You don't think their kids go to school, their families protected by
> police and fire, or colllect welfare?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
>>>> economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
>>>> did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
>>>> vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.
>>>
>>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>>
>>> People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to
>>> absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a
>>> reasonable expectation.
>>
>> Well look at this way. Mr. Jones lived in an apartment most of his
>> life, he suddenly qualifies for a 3600 sq ft home because of the
>> "government guaranteed loans". He is married and the kids are gone
>> before he bought the house. He was so marginal on being able to afford
>> the house in the first place that now he cannot make payments as the
>> escrow has gone up as a direct result of the home increasing in value
>> 30% in the last 5 years. There was a reason he was in an apartment most
>> of his adult life, and not the government has provided a way for him to
>> live in a neighborhood that he would not normally have been able to
>> afford. He is not moving out until he is forced out. See where I'm
>> going here... ;~)
>
> Government guarantees (ick) or not, PITI of 30% is about max. The
> problem isn't the house but the cars and credit card debt *after* the
> home purchase. That's a choice.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> This has have happened now instead of then because of rising costs to
>>>> maintain the houses and pay taxes owed. Now the homes need to be
>>>> maintained and that expense adds.
>>>
>>> I'm not following you. The costs today are similar to the costs ten
>>> years ago (pre-crash).
>>
>> Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>> afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>> 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.
>
> 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
> (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
> doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
> to PI_I.
>


Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?

We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.


And if you have any doubts google the complaints Fort Bend county
residents are screaming about concerning raising property values. It
has got the State representatives attention.

Texas can increase values up to 10% each year and they typically catch
up if they missed a year, they can go up 10% for each year that they did
not.

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:j%[email protected]:

>
> And your solution is? Be specific, don't speak in generalities
> like "eliminate the federal education department", or "return
> control to local school boards".
>
> The goal is to provide a uniform, quality education to all students
> nationwide in an environment where both parents must work full-time
> to afford housing and basic living expenses and pop culture denegrates
> smart children.
>
> You'll note from the per-pupil spending chart above that it's the
> Rural areas where the spending-per-pupil becomes higher than average;
> which makes some sense, as the fixed overhead for facilities and staff
> is distributed over a smaller student base.
>
> None of the teachers (with 25-30 years in the classroom) that I'm
> aquainted with make $100k, although one (with a Masters degree) is
> pretty close to that.
>
> Please ensure that your suggested plan includes education for
> _everyone_, including those with various physical and mental
> disabilities.
>

First, be careful of the uniform bit. It can be interpreted different
ways, like teaching all 12 year olds the same bit of book. Some of them
will be bored silly, others will not be ready for the material, and one
lucky kid will get the stuff he needs when he's ready. That's not to say
I don't support some form of standard, I do. It's just uniform is SO
easy to do wrong!

One simple thing you can do is solicit feedback. I don't mean "do a
survey for a chance to win a $100 gift card" feedback. Those don't help.
Go talk to the kids and find out if perhaps the teacher would be better
assigned elsewhere. (Don't ask them that directly, just ask about their
understanding and whether the teacher seems to care.)

It's more effective, but hard to get kids to take charge of their
education. It was great to get to college and have teachers say "Here's
a heap of problems relative to what we've discussed today. Do as many as
you think you need to know how to do it."

Let's go back to why it's hard to get kids to take charge of their
education... 7 hours a day, 30-45 minutes for lunch, classes start while
they're still tired, and they're forced to sit there and listen as some
teacher drones on. As a kid, you don't have a choice. At least when you
have a job, you have the option of quitting. You really want someone to
take charge of a situation when you told them they have to be there and
are basically IMPRISIONED?

Puckdropper





--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
>>>>><puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>>>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>>>>>>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>>>>>>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>>>>>>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>>>>>>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>>>>>>> emergency instead of 3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>>>>>>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>>>>>>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>>>>>>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>>>>>>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>>>>>>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>>>>>>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>>>>>>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>>>>>>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>>>>>>insurance, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Puckdropper
>>>>> Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
>>>>>agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
>>>>>in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"
>>>>>
>>>>>"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
>>>>>never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
>>>>>default wasted.\
>>>>>
>>>>>What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
>>>>>without wasting money on the "education system"
>>>>>
>>>>> Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
>>>>>Boards, etc, are a large money waster.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
>>>>should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
>>>>should be abolished.
>>> It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
>>>as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
>>>teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.
>>
>>There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
>>results justify, certainly.
> Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
>a pretty good school. In a good area.

The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.

<http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>

You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>
>Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.

Less?????

$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
don't help anyone, except administrators.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:07:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
>> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
>> >> ><puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>> >> >>4ax.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>> >> >>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>> >> >>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>> >> >>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>> >> >>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>> >> >>> emergency instead of 3?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>> >> >>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>> >> >>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>> >> >>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>> >> >>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>> >> >>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>> >> >>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>> >> >>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>> >> >>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>> >> >>insurance, and so on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Puckdropper
>> >> > Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
>> >> >agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
>> >> >in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"
>> >> >
>> >> >"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
>> >> >never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
>> >> >default wasted.\
>> >> >
>> >> >What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
>> >> >without wasting money on the "education system"
>> >> >
>> >> > Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
>> >> >Boards, etc, are a large money waster.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
>> >> should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
>> >> should be abolished.
>> >
>> >If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I
>> >would agree with you. But they are and have
>> >been for as long as I can remember.
>> >
>> It's been since forever that locals have been in control.
>
>In what world?

I live on planet Earth. Which universe do you live in?

>On 1/16/17 8:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
>> and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.
>>
>> <http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>
>>
>> You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
>> want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>>> a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
>>
>> Less?????
>>
>> $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
>> after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
>> teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
>> don't help anyone, except administrators.

And your solution is? Be specific, don't speak in generalities
like "eliminate the federal education department", or "return
control to local school boards".

The goal is to provide a uniform, quality education to all students
nationwide in an environment where both parents must work full-time
to afford housing and basic living expenses and pop culture denegrates
smart children.

You'll note from the per-pupil spending chart above that it's the
Rural areas where the spending-per-pupil becomes higher than average;
which makes some sense, as the fixed overhead for facilities and staff
is distributed over a smaller student base.

None of the teachers (with 25-30 years in the classroom) that I'm aquainted
with make $100k, although one (with a Masters degree) is pretty close
to that.

Please ensure that your suggested plan includes education for _everyone_,
including those with various physical and mental disabilities.

On 1/16/17 8:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
> and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.
>
> <http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>
>
> You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
> want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>>
>> Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>> a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
>
> Less?????
>
> $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
> after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
> teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
> don't help anyone, except administrators.
>

DOH! (beat me to it!)

-BR

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:02:21 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
><satisfying whiners>
>
>>>>> But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
>>>>> years. Not much.
>>
>>Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand
>>the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you
>>are living on the edge.
>
>Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their
>homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in
>their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
>>>> pay has not gone up.
>>>
>>> Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
>>> ragging on their food budget?
>>
>>You are preaching to the choir.
>
>No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim,
>it's the same to me.
>
><...>
>
>>>> Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
>>>> government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
>>>> number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
>>>> same income.
>>>
>>> Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
>>> loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
>>> underwriting of those loans.
>>
>>Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and
>>suggesting what to put on the application.
>
>There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A
>credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc
>loans are a thing of the past.
>>
>> One of those is that the PITI, plus all
>>> other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.
>>>
>>> If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.
>>
>>I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each
>>month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge.
>
>I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling
>you. Check for a boat in the driveway?
>>
Or a gambling problem, or too many Cigaraettes, or booze, or a
mistress,, Lots of "money holes"
>>>
>>>>>> And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>>>>>> the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>>>>>> when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>>>>>> lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>>>>>> of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.
>>>
>>> There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
>>> They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
>>> There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
>>> but they don't advertise the same way).
>>>
>>
>>Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people.
>>
>>Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of
>>this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out
>>and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense.
>
>I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money
>is still pretty loose but not *that* loose.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>>
>>
>>In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
>>understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
>>complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
>>committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
>>an increased budget.
>
>My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
>that's "fixed", not the budgets.
The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrot

SNIPP
>
>So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
>That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
>year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
>Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
>neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.

Your taxes are double mine on 3.4 the house value.
>
>Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
>in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
>they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
>$12,000 per year on top of P&I.
>
>And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>
>And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.
>

On 1/16/2017 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrot
>
> SNIPP
>>
>> So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
>> That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
>> year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
>> Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
>> neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.
>
> Your taxes are double mine on 3.4 the house value.

How would you like to trade tax bills? ;~)



>>
>> Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
>> in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
>> they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
>> $12,000 per year on top of P&I.
>>
>> And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>> the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>>
>> And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>> when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>> lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>> of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.
>>
>

On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped to make some pussies happy, here.>
>>>
>>>>>> Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>>>>>> afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>>>>>> 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
>>>>> (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
>>>>> doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
>>>>> to PI_I.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
>>>> your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
>>>> thousand dollars?
>>>
>>> Double those numbers but, yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
>>>> 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
>>>> 3 years.
>>>
>>> What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?
>>>>
>>>> And these numbers are may be skewed.
>>>>
>>>> But
>>>> Below is fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
>>>> $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
>>>> plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.
>>>
>>> As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
>>> It's only the tax part that's increasing.
>>>
>>> OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
>>> (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
>>> total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
>>> increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
>>> house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
>>> same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
>>> owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
>>> their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
>>> shape without the home.
>>
>> That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
>> the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
>> qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.
>
> But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
> without the house.

They wold be better off in a home that they can afford.

>>
>> You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
>> taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
>> increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.
>
> Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
> .5% tax rate.

Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the
newer neighborhoods.



>
>> Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
>> but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
>> there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
>> can carry it over and add to the following year/s.
>
> The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
> sale on my house was ~$360K.
>>
>> So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
>> That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
>> year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
>> Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
>> neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.
>
> But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
> years. Not much.

It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.

>>
>> Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
>> in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
>> they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
>> $12,000 per year on top of P&I.
>
> What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?

Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.



>>
>> And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>> the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>>
>> And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>> when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>> lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>> of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:55:06 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
>>>>>> a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
>>>>>> the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
>>>>>> tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
>>>>>> the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
>>>>>> by the "needs" of the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
>>>>>understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
>>>>>complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
>>>>>committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
>>>>>an increased budget.
>>>>
>>>>My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
>>>>that's "fixed", not the budgets.
>>> The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
>>>dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.
>>
>>Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
>>changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
>>paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
>>budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
>>difference.

> The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region
>for the year.

Now you have me confused. If the mil rate changes from year to year,
you're more like Vermont. That makes more sense than having budgets
controlled by real estate values (as it is here).

By "region", do you mean across many taxing entities? Cities pay the
same as towns, pay the same as unincorporated areas? Schools aren't
localy controlled? Roads, fire, and police aren't locally controlled?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped to make some pussies happy, here.>
>>
>>>>> Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
>>>>> afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
>>>>> 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.
>>>>
>>>> 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
>>>> (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
>>>> doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
>>>> to PI_I.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
>>> your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
>>> thousand dollars?
>>
>> Double those numbers but, yes.
>>
>>>
>>> We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
>>> 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
>>> 3 years.
>>
>> What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?
>>>
>>> And these numbers are may be skewed.
>>>
>>> But
>>> Below is fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
>>> $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
>>> plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.
>>
>> As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
>> It's only the tax part that's increasing.
>>
>> OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
>> (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
>> total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
>> increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
>> house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
>> same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
>> owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
>> their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
>> shape without the home.
>
>That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
>the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
>qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.

But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
without the house.
>
>You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
>taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
>increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.

Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
.5% tax rate.

>Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
>but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
>there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
>can carry it over and add to the following year/s.

The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
sale on my house was ~$360K.
>
>So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
>That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
>year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
>Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
>neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.

But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.
>
>Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
>in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
>they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
>$12,000 per year on top of P&I.

What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?
>
>And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>
>And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
>><puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>>>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>>>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>>>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>>>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>>>> emergency instead of 3?
>>>>
>>>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>>>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>>>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>>>
>>>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>>>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>>>
>>>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>>>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>>>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>>>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>>>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>>>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>>>insurance, and so on.
>>>
>>>Puckdropper
>> Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
>>agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
>>in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"
>>
>>"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
>>never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
>>default wasted.\
>>
>>What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
>>without wasting money on the "education system"
>>
>> Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
>>Boards, etc, are a large money waster.
>
>Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
>should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
>should be abolished.
It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
>>>>>><puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>>>>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>>>>>>>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>>>>>>>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>>>>>>>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>>>>>>>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>>>>>>>> emergency instead of 3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>>>>>>>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>>>>>>>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>>>>>>>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>>>>>>>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>>>>>>>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>>>>>>>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>>>>>>>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>>>>>>>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>>>>>>>insurance, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Puckdropper
>>>>>> Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
>>>>>>agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
>>>>>>in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
>>>>>>never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
>>>>>>default wasted.\
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
>>>>>>without wasting money on the "education system"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
>>>>>>Boards, etc, are a large money waster.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
>>>>>should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
>>>>>should be abolished.
>>>> It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
>>>>as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
>>>>teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.
>>>
>>>There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
>>>results justify, certainly.
>> Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
>>a pretty good school. In a good area.
>
>The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
>and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.
>
><http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>
>
>You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
>want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>>
>>Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>>a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
>
>Less?????
>
>$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
>after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
>teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
>don't help anyone, except administrators.
I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in
Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly
they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for
each of the three. That's what I based my comment on.

A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in
an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but
an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way.
There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but
there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching
- passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their
salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bullshit
from the ministry and board level.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
<satisfying whiners>

>>>> But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
>>>> years. Not much.
>
>Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand
>the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you
>are living on the edge.

Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their
homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in
their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too?
>
>
>>>
>>> It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
>>> pay has not gone up.
>>
>> Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
>> ragging on their food budget?
>
>You are preaching to the choir.

No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim,
it's the same to me.

<...>

>>> Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
>>> government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
>>> number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
>>> same income.
>>
>> Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
>> loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
>> underwriting of those loans.
>
>Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and
>suggesting what to put on the application.

There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A
credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc
loans are a thing of the past.
>
> One of those is that the PITI, plus all
>> other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.
>>
>> If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.
>
>I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each
>month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge.

I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling
you. Check for a boat in the driveway?
>
>>
>>>>> And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
>>>>> the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.
>>>>>
>>>>> And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
>>>>> when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
>>>>> lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
>>>>> of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.
>>
>> There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
>> They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
>> There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
>> but they don't advertise the same way).
>>
>
>Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people.
>
>Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of
>this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out
>and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense.

I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money
is still pretty loose but not *that* loose.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:46:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>On 1/16/17 8:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
>>> and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.
>>>
>>> <http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>
>>>
>>> You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
>>> want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>>>> a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
>>>
>>> Less?????
>>>
>>> $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
>>> after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
>>> teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
>>> don't help anyone, except administrators.
>
>And your solution is? Be specific, don't speak in generalities
>like "eliminate the federal education department", or "return
>control to local school boards".

Banning public sector unions is a start. Barring that, right to work
would go a long way.
>
>The goal is to provide a uniform, quality education to all students
>nationwide in an environment where both parents must work full-time
>to afford housing and basic living expenses and pop culture denegrates
>smart children.

No, that's not the goal. I have no business telling people in Iowa
what to do with their lives or their children.

>You'll note from the per-pupil spending chart above that it's the
>Rural areas where the spending-per-pupil becomes higher than average;
>which makes some sense, as the fixed overhead for facilities and staff
>is distributed over a smaller student base.

Bullshit.

>None of the teachers (with 25-30 years in the classroom) that I'm aquainted
>with make $100k, although one (with a Masters degree) is pretty close
>to that.

I know several. A lot of school boards publish salary information.
You'd be surprised what the high end of the scale makes.
>
>Please ensure that your suggested plan includes education for _everyone_,
>including those with various physical and mental disabilities.

Elimination of unions. Vouchers (competition). Pay per performance.
Shitcaning the illiterate.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:46:00 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
>>>>>>><puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[email protected] wrote in news:po2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
>>>>>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
>>>>>>>>> fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
>>>>>>>>> the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
>>>>>>>>> Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
>>>>>>>>> instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
>>>>>>>>> emergency instead of 3?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
>>>>>>>>> course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
>>>>>>>>> corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
>>>>>>>>by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
>>>>>>>>(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
>>>>>>>>huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
>>>>>>>>to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
>>>>>>>>time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
>>>>>>>>and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
>>>>>>>>insurance, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Puckdropper
>>>>>>> Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
>>>>>>>agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
>>>>>>>in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
>>>>>>>never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
>>>>>>>default wasted.\
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
>>>>>>>without wasting money on the "education system"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
>>>>>>>Boards, etc, are a large money waster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
>>>>>>should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
>>>>>>should be abolished.
>>>>> It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
>>>>>as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
>>>>>teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.
>>>>
>>>>There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
>>>>results justify, certainly.
>>> Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
>>>a pretty good school. In a good area.
>>
>>The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
>>and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.
>>
>><http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html>
>>
>>You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
>>want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.
>>>
>>>Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
>>>a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
>>
>>Less?????
>>
>>$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
>>after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
>>teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
>>don't help anyone, except administrators.
> I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in
>Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly
>they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for
>each of the three. That's what I based my comment on.
>
>A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in
>an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but
>an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way.

But there is no difference. They all get paid the same.

> There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but
>there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching
>- passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their
>salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bullshit
>from the ministry and board level.

So get rid of the slackers, and everyone in the way. Drain the swamp,
as it were.