Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

[Spalted Walt]

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

[Leon]

I love those videos

[Leon]

On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:

Looking at more of their videos it appears that Hammer has adopted the
Laguna style band saw guides. Maybe Laguna makes them for Hammer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTu0nY5Hn5c

[Leon]

Well maybe not Hammer rather Felder.

[Scott Lurndal]

Or maybe Laguna and Hammer buy them from the same Bulgarian factory....

[Leon]

On 1/13/2017 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> 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
>>
>>
>> Looking at more of their videos it appears that Hammer has adopted the
>> Laguna style band saw guides. Maybe Laguna makes them for Hammer.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTu0nY5Hn5c
>
> Or maybe Laguna and Hammer buy them from the same Bulgarian factory....
>

Certainly the saws may be, along with the Italian factories.

I think the Laguna guide is actually an exclusive add on item that they
manufacture, I could be wrong. Laguna saws come from Italy and other
eastern areas like Bulgaria so not all are made in the same factory. I
understood that the Laguna guides were added on after Laguna takes
possession of the saw. And Laguna offers their guides for other brand
saws. Also I have not seed this type ceramic guide on any other brand
until now. I did quite a bit of research on many band saws 10 years
ago, including Hammer/Felder and only Laguna had this type guide when I
bought my Laguna at that time. Laguna also adds on the Baldor motors
after taking possession.

https://lagunatools.com/accessories/bandsaw-accessories/ceramic-guides/guide-selection/

[Electric Comet]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:33 +0000
Spalted Walt <res...@newsgroup.pls> wrote:

> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this
> project. ^º^

nice machine

what is cost

i would guess forty thou or maybe fifty

[Electric Comet]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:33 +0000
Spalted Walt <res...@newsgroup.pls> wrote:

> Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I shit canned this

would have been good punchline at the end to show the small door to his
shop that the hot tub would not fit thru

[DerbyDad03]

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".

[Meanie]

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.

[Meanie]

Perfect. I can sell my car and buy the Felder which will fit in the same
garage space where the car was parked.

[DerbyDad03]

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."

They may have been able to afford (have enough money to pay for) the initial
purchase, but that doesn't mean that they can afford the total cost of
ownership.

Sure, it's easy (and correct) to say that they should never had made that
original purchase in the first place. However, to drive by someone's house or
look at someone's vehicle (or tools) and make the blanket statement "If they
can afford the (thing) then they can afford the (aftermath)" is making an
assumption that might not be correct. Unless you know their actual financial
situation, you really don't know if they have gotten themselves in over their
head. I'm sure we've all seen that happen.

[Leon]

I noticed IIRC the saw takes up 2.5 square meters of space. If only it
were perfectly square.

[Leon]

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.

Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.

[Meanie]

On 1/14/2017 11:04 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."
>

Apples to oranges comparison. You used examples of personal labor
whereas not for the vehicle. If you stated pool parts or landscape
accessories, then yes. Much depends on the brand, type, neighborhood,
etc. Huge houses have higher expenses than smaller ones. In ground
concrete pools have higher expenses than above ground metal or plastic
pool kits.

> They may have been able to afford (have enough money to pay for) the initial
> purchase, but that doesn't mean that they can afford the total cost of
> ownership.
>
> Sure, it's easy (and correct) to say that they should never had made that
> original purchase in the first place. However, to drive by someone's house or
> look at someone's vehicle (or tools) and make the blanket statement "If they
> can afford the (thing) then they can afford the (aftermath)" is making an
> assumption that might not be correct. Unless you know their actual financial
> situation, you really don't know if they have gotten themselves in over their
> head. I'm sure we've all seen that happen.
>

The fact is, when purchasing a product, we purchase on many criteria and
one of them is brand name. When purchasing top of the line products,
obviously, top of the line parts will ensue when needed. You cannot
purchase a Mercedes and use cheap parts even if aftermarket, as they are
still expensive. Top of the line products are top of the line because of
the parts they use. Therefore, if someone purchases that product, they
should be expecting to pay higher end costs for repairs. 9.99% of the
time, a person purchasing a brand new top of the line product can afford
it's upkeep.

[Meanie]

Probably difficult to design something that precise into a perfectly
symmetrical shape.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:17:32 -0500, Meanie <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/14/2017 11:04 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. ^榨

Like I've said many times when asked about cars - with some brands
(mostly German, but also Italian and English (now Indian owned) - if
you EVER have to ask the question "how much?", you can't afford one.

Also:"If you want first quality oats, you have to be willing to pay
first quality price - If on the other hand you are willing to settle
for oats that have already been through the horse, they DO come a
little cheaper"

[Meanie]

On 1/14/2017 5:31 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:17:32 -0500, Meanie <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2017 11:04 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^

I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[Unquestionably Confused]

On 1/14/2017 4:44 PM, Meanie wrote:
> On 1/14/2017 5:31 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

[snip]

>>> it's upkeep.
>> Like I've said many times when asked about cars - with some brands
>> (mostly German, but also Italian and English (now Indian owned) - if
>> you EVER have to ask the question "how much?", you can't afford one.
>>
>> Also:"If you want first quality oats, you have to be willing to pay
>> first quality price - If on the other hand you are willing to settle
>> for oats that have already been through the horse, they DO come a
>> little cheaper"
>>

One of my personal favorites! Attributed to Will Rogers Jr.

Another: Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick two, because that's all you can have!

[k...@notreal.com]

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. ^榨

>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

>
>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.

[Leon]

That and cutting boards takes up room too.

[Leon]

On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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.

>>
>> 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. 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.

So while those home owners technically could afford to buy the houses,
they could not afford the expenses that came with those homes.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>

wrote:

>On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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. ^榨

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.

>
>So while those home owners technically could afford to buy the houses,
>they could not afford the expenses that came with those homes.

The basic problem was they had ARMs and were trapped by falling
values. "Homes will always increase in value."

[Leon]

On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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^

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.


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.

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.

And yes the ARM was absolutely a problem but in this area the sky
rocketing home values are out pacing incomes, NOW. My property taxes
alone have increased an average of $200.00 per month in the last 3 years.
Fortunately we paid cash for our home and did not buy bigger than we
needed which financing would have afforded us.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>

wrote:

>On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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. ^榨

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.

>
>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.

>
>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).

>And yes the ARM was absolutely a problem but in this area the sky
>rocketing home values are out pacing incomes, NOW. My property taxes
>alone have increased an average of $200.00 per month in the last 3 years.
>Fortunately we paid cash for our home and did not buy bigger than we
>needed which financing would have afforded us.

You're in a position in life where you don't need a mortgage. I have
pocket change left on mine but it's not possible for everyone to be in
this position. Some aren't old farts. ;-)

[Leon]

On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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^

Not here, those taxes are all collected to equally supply services to
the land owners.

>>
>> 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... ;~)

>>
>> 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.

[k...@notreal.com]

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

wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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. ^榨

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.

[J. Clarke]

In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...

>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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^

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.

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

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.

> >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.

> 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?

[Leon]

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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^

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.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, k...@notreal.com 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.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

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)

[Unknown]

cl...@snyder.on.ca 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!

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:01:19 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> 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.
>
>

You seem to be in favor of property taxes as a set fee. Everyone pays the exact same price. Taking the "flat tax" philosophy to an extreme. Everyone should pay the exact same dollar amount of taxes regardless of their income. No progressive to it.

Found a website about Houston city property taxes that said this:

"The property tax provides more tax dollars for local government services in Texas than any other source. Property taxes help pay for public schools, city streets, county roads, police, fire protection, and many other services."

With streets and maybe police and fire, maybe, everyone should get the exact same service regardless of income or wealth or property value. But most property tax money is used for public schools. In my city the wealthier suburbs with nice homes have much, much, much nicer schools than the ghettos. I would guess it is the exact same in Houston too. People with million dollar homes want their little children to go to nice schools. Nice schools with swimming pools, new football stadiums, new basketball courts, performing arts centers, no lead pipes for drinking water, indoor plumbing with automatic flush toilets, solariums, etc. So it would be pretty hard to pay for those nice schools in the millionaire areas if property taxes are not based on home value.

Unless you are also proposing that we tax everyone the same, poor, rich, does not matter, everyone pays the exact same tax amount. Then we give the vast majority of that total money to the rich kids so they can have nice schools. Poor kids should be happy with a shack and outhouse.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, 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.

[Leon]

On 1/16/2017 2:13 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:01:19 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> You seem to be in favor of property taxes as a set fee. Everyone
> pays the exact same price. Taking the "flat tax" philosophy to an
> extreme. Everyone should pay the exact same dollar amount of taxes
> regardless of their income. No progressive to it.

>
> Found a website about Houston city property taxes that said this:

I live in an unincorporated area of Ft. Bend county, west of Houston.

>
> "The property tax provides more tax dollars for local government
> services in Texas than any other source. Property taxes help pay for
> public schools, city streets, county roads, police, fire protection,
> and many other services."
>
> With streets and maybe police and fire, maybe, everyone should get
> the exact same service regardless of income or wealth or property
> value. But most property tax money is used for public schools. In
> my city the wealthier suburbs with nice homes have much, much, much
> nicer schools than the ghettos. I would guess it is the exact same
> in Houston too. People with million dollar homes want their little
> children to go to nice schools. Nice schools with swimming pools,
> new football stadiums, new basketball courts, performing arts
> centers, no lead pipes for drinking water, indoor plumbing with
> automatic flush toilets, solariums, etc.


So it would be pretty hard
> to pay for those nice schools in the millionaire areas if property
> taxes are not based on home value.

How do you figure that? Every one pays the same tax, with some
exemptions, for the very poor, and all money goes to pay the budget. If
every one is paying the same it will be harder for the government to
hide misuse of funds. Every one will be affected if the tax goes up.
FWIW school taxes are collected but are a separate entity of property tax.

>
> Unless you are also proposing that we tax everyone the same, poor,
> rich, does not matter, everyone pays the exact same tax amount.

That is what I am proposing, just like everything else, sales tax,
merchandise etc.

Then
> we give the vast majority of that total money to the rich kids so
> they can have nice schools. Poor kids should be happy with a shack
> and outhouse.
>

No, all money goes into a general fund and is distributed equally to all
schools depending on the population of students.

If rich people want something special for their kids schools they can
get involved with something like the PTA to collect for special amenities.

[k...@notreal.com]

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

wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, k...@notreal.com 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.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
>4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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. ^榨

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

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

[k...@notreal.com]

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

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

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.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.

[Leon]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

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

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"?

[Leon]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>

They might be better of living (and working) elsewhere but that's not
the issue.

>
>>>
>>> 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.

The tax rate shouldn't have anything to do with the neighborhood. The
point isn't the tax rate, or even the taxes paid, rather the
_increase_ in the cost of owning the home. I don't see how a 3%/year
increase could bankrupt anyone.

>
>>
>>> 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.

Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
ragging on their food budget?

>>>
>>> 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.

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. 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.

>>> 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).

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
a pretty good school. In a good area.

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.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

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.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

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

[k...@notreal.com]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

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?

[J. Clarke]

In article <cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@

4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
> >4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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://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.

[J. Clarke]

In article <r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...

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.

[Leon]

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.

>>
>> 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.

>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

>
>>>> 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.

[Leon]

On 1/16/2017 8:54 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca 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? ;~)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

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.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Up here we have "regional government" In our region it is two level -
in some it is single level. A lot of the costs are shared throughout
the region (school, hospitals, water, sewers, transit, main roads,
etc) while other services are handled by the local second level -
township or city. All the former small towns are now part of a larger
entity. There is a regional component to our taxes, as well as a local
component. In my case, the City of Waterloo, but there is also the
township of Woolwich, the city of Cambridge, the township of
Wellesley, the Township of Wilmot, etc. The budget is set by council
after much deliberation, balancing the "wish list" against the revenue
available from the current assessment without raising the mil rate by
an unacceptable level.
We've owned this house for 25 years, and our taxes have gone from
roughly $800 to $3200 (while the value of the house has gone from
$67000 to somewhere around $380,000) The taxes have not increased as
fast as the value of the property - for sure.

The property prices are going up like a rocket right now as we are
only 100km (60 miles) from Toronto - where the average cost of a
detatched home has reached about 1.2 million. In the whole region
there were only 111 active listings the third week of december - down
from a normal 300+, and there are bidding wars on just about anything.
Not at all out of the ordinary for a house to go $40,000 over asking
price with several Torontonians fighting over it. Making it pretty
hard for locals to buy a house....
There is only a limitted amount of development land available as most
good farmland is now protected.. There are some half acre lots with
nice 1960's bungalows that would have sold 5 years ago for $500,000 or
so selling for upwards of $600,000 to be bulldozed for the lot - to
build a monster house (McMansion) worth close to $,2,000,000 - or
more.. In other cases, the lot is devided and TWO monsters are built.
It's called intensification and infilling.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I can tell you I couldn't affoird to sell my house and rent here - If
I got $380,000 for my house (definitely on the high side - 3 years ago
it was valued at about $328, but things are going crazy) I could, at
today's prices, rent a nice apartment (2 bedroom) or half decent half
a house for about 18 years. and I'd have my taxes ($3000 a year) left
over.

[Brewster]

On 1/16/17 7:51 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>

snip

>> 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.
>
> 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.
>

An interesting comparison is looking at metrics like graduation rate,
reading "levels" upon graduation, college bound percentages, etc. and
comparing that with money spent per student.
Very little correlation. There are differences in students (poverty
rates, etc.) but I find it hard to believe that more money == better
students.

Teachers are the "front line" in this war, pay for performance, not
seniority. Someone who commits to excelling in teaching (like with any
other profession) should reap the rewards.

-BR

[Brewster]

On 1/16/17 8:12 PM, k...@notreal.com 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

[Scott Lurndal]

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.

[Unknown]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:j%qfA.5418$UW1....@fx37.iad:

>
> 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!

[k...@notreal.com]

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

wrote:

>On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:22:50 -0500, "J. Clarke"

<j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@
>4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
>> >4ax.com>, k...@notreal.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, k...@notreal.com 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. ^榨

Dunno, doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. I'm still doing the
engineering thing because it pays well and making things is fun.

>> >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.

No, it's the opposite of my point. However, I do believe that
everyone should share some of the pain for government. Highly
progressive taxes are counterproductive.

>
>> >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.

God only wants 10%.

>
>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.

Save the argument for Hillary.

If one has no job *here*, it doesn't much matter what the rent is
*there*. There is where the job is.

[k...@notreal.com]

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.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:46:23 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>On 1/16/17 8:12 PM, k...@notreal.com 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.

[k...@notreal.com]

It's been since forever that locals have been in control.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Or a gambling problem, or too many Cigaraettes, or booze, or a
mistress,, Lots of "money holes"

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, k...@notreal.com wrote:
snip

>>>$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.

Not everywhere.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

What is a shitcane?
Who's illiterate?? ;}

[J. Clarke]

In article <10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@

In what world?

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>snip
>>>>$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.
>
>Not everywhere.

They do in the US.

[k...@notreal.com]

Laptop keyboard.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:07:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"

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

[Scott Lurndal]

k...@notreal.com writes:
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>snip
>>>>>$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.
>>
>>Not everywhere.
>
>They do in the US.

No, they don't.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:47:51 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bullshit. They're paid by senioity, not performance. *EVERYWHERE* in
the US.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

But they are not all paid the same for the same seniority - it varies
significantyly from district to district or at least state to state.

[k...@notreal.com]

That's not the point. The incentives are all wrong. The education
system is fatally broken.