vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house.
"First of all, the recovery isn't ""right around the corner.""  It's been in process since March of 2009.  It might not be ""the recovery you want,"" or even an ""ideal"" recovery, but it's a recovery nonetheless.  I could produce any number of official indicators that bear this out.  Your views extremely hyperbolic.  Do you know what a HELOC is?  Do you know what it means to have a $500k HELOC?  It means that you have $500k of *equity* in your house.  Not what your house is worth, mind you - but the value of your stake in the house, minus the value of the bank's stake in the house.  $500k?  Into a house, over 20 years of stagnating wages?  Doesn't make much sense.  Why?  It's total hyperbole.  Just like your post:  Total hyperbole."
The thing about amway products is that they are products people already use and buy from other stores. I mean protein bars and energy drinks and body care products.That's not the right way to have a profitable business; buying a bunch of inventory in your garage and then trying to sell it.   The money is in getting people sponsored and teaching them to switch their shopping habits to go through their own store as amway pays you a bonus based upon the amount of product you and your business consume or sell in retail. The more volume, the higher percentage you get in bonus.   Now this can develop into a business asset that is very low maintenance and pays you well. It takes maybe 15 hours a week to host meetings after you make enough money to quit your day job. Compared to owning real estate? Compared to owning a grocery store business? Those things have a ton of overhead and major headaches to handle. But I do agree the majority of the industry is very amateur and they will teach you to do stupid stuff like put inventory in your garage. That doesn't make amway a pyramid scheme though. Amway is the largest privately held debt free organization in the world. No public stock and they made over 11 billion dollars in 2012.
I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.
"TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions.  Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest).  A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back.  So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding.  That's a much higher price tag than TARP.  Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP.  The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages?  Should the government go deeper into debt?  Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note:  Some people like to talk about a ""secret bailout"" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government.  The ""secret bailout"" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks.  Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.)  Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank.  Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit).  Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections.  If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the ""real"" value of the house.  Is it right to overpay for these houses?  This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process.  (Loan modification forces banks to accept the ""real"" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford.  Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?"
If the building has no income, it also probably has minimal expenses. The heat, water and electricity costs are nearly zero. They are letting the value depreciate, and taking it off the taxes. I also suspect the condition of the building is poor, so any effort to make the building productive would be very costly. Many cities combat this by setting the tax on empty buildings or empty lots at a much higher rate. Or they set the value of the property at a high valuation based on what it could generate. Sometimes this is only targeted at some sections of the city to encourage development. They also offer tax breaks when the owner of a house has the house as their principal residence.
This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.
There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.
Lets say person A has no problems and has roughly a 100 point IQ. Because their life is fine they less likely to strive for better.  Then there is person B with issues, so they have to fight to be 'normal' or smart enough to work in normal situations. Because of this their intelligence is much higher. From that a personality trait is built which encourages them to continue learning and increasing their intelligence. They end up being smarter than the average person on specific pointed subjects.  IQ is a bit annoying as it implies well rounded knowledge, but this skill isn't that. It is pointed knowledge in specific areas.  I've always speculated that when someone is gifted they excel in most everything and tend to be rather well rounded, but genius is someone who is so interested in something specific that they excel beyond gifted. A genius is someone who can skip steps in these subjects.  Because of these things I've always speculated that most geniuses is more likely to be autistic at a young age than not, but details are hard to come by.
"&gt; Spoken like somebody with relatively wealthy parents.  More like someone who has gone to school with hundreds of people that didn't belong there.  I was a ""gifted"" student. I would be fine either way.. which is how it is supposed to be. Banks are making money hand over fist by selling the dream to high school kids that have no clue about the world. Degrees are almost worthless as anything other than a certification at this point."
There will still be jobs that require a human, we don't have the technology to develop or build anything close to the human brain and body.    &gt;or will there be some lag time?  I think there will be some lag time which would be painful. I think technology changes way faster than a labor force can change skills.   It's why I believe that we need to continue to make investments into education, help make it more affordable and reform the education system so people can explore their potential/creativity/go at their own pace rather than teaching to the test and herding everyone along.    I believe I greatly benefited by being placed into a education program that allowed students to explore their potential. A teacher I had in elementary school thought I would be a good candidate for the program and I tested into it. The State of Oregon operates a [TAG](http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2321) (Talented and Gifted) program and this program helped a lot.
"That wasn't really my point.  I was countering the attitudes that  1.  Landlords vs slumlords - somehow I doubt if the author lives in a real slum with a landlord that provides substandard housing.  Why call a landlord a derogatory name for providing you a place to live&gt;?  2.  The idea that the ""slumlords"" somehow conspired to artificially inflate, then deflate the quiet and lovely neighborhood.  Pretty ridiculous notion in my opinion.  Not to mention that buying a home in an area with abysmal schools doesn't seem to be a good idea if you have a ""gifted daughter"", unless you can afford to send her to private schools."
If you are moving into a new house, make sure that it has got a proper security system. A security system can be a complex one, covering the entire house, or it can be a localized one, installed only on specific doors and windows of the place.
This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity.  Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.
&gt; 'concentrating wealth' = rising houseprices which are in the hands of several house owners  &gt; Why do house prices rise?  &gt; Land has a limited supply while demand could be infinite  &gt; If the demand would drop, house prices would drop.  &gt; Mass-aging is happening  &gt; Wow I could be able to afford a house after the baby-boomers are gone thanks to a population drop  &gt; Socialists start to import refugees en masse. Thus increasing the population again  &gt; fuck i'll never be able to buy house  &gt; mfw socialists fucked things over for the  'common folk'
"Yes and no.  You can not claim the maid service cleaning your ""home"" but you can cleaning your ""office"" or your office's facilities.  For example, If you have a mother-in-law suite in the back that you converted to an office, AND you have a maid service cleaning just that, THEN you should be able to claim the expense. Another example would be if you have a room in your house set aside as an office (careful here) AND your maid services charges $20 per room, you should be able to claim that $20.  Another example; if you have a maid service that charges you $100 to clean your house, AND you have a dedicated office in that house, THEN you may be  claim a portion of your expenses as a business expense. HOWEVER!!!! This can be very subject to your situation. For example, your much more likely to meet the criteria if you have clients in your office. Much less likely if your the only person using the office.  Also you need to be aware that what the IRS allows you to call an office is not as clear cut as it seems.  Your best bet is to ask a tax consultant."
I'd pile up as much cash as you can in a savings account - you will need money for the move (even if it's just gas money) and it's going to be hard to predict where house prices are going so you might or might not be underwater when it comes time to sell the house. Or you might be so deep underwater by then that the extra money doesn't make much of a difference anymore anyway. Once you're actually in the process of selling the house, you can figure out if you can (or need to) use the savings to cover the shortfall, closing costs or if you just built up a little wealth during the time you put the money aside.
I agree with Joe that you seem to have your stuff together. However I can't disagree more otherwise.  You are getting a loan at such a cheap rate that it would be almost impossible to not substantially beat that rate over the next 15-20 years.  You paying off your home early might give you warm fuzzy feeling but would make me queezy.  This is a MONEY website.  Make money. For our purposes let's say your home is worth 500k, you can get a fixed rate loan at 3% over 30 years, and you can earn 7% on your investments per year.  Note that I have earned 12% on mine the past 15 years so I am being pretty conservative. So let's not get into your other stuff because that is fine.  Let's focus just on that 500k - your house. Interest only Loan for the whole thing-  The flip side is you pay off your house.  Your house could be worth 400K in 30 years.  Probably not but neighborhood could decline, house not kept up, or whatever.  Your house is not a risk-free investment.  And it fluctuate in many areas more than the stock market.  But let's just say your area stays OK or normal.  In 30 years you can expect your house to be worth somewhere between 700k to 1.5 million.  Let's just say you did GREAT with your house.  Guess what?  At 1.5 million selling price you still lost 1.5 million because of your decision plus sunk your money into a less liquid option.   Let the bank take the risk on your house price.  The warm fuzzy feeling will be there when you realize you could rebuy your house two times over in 6-7 years. Note: I know my example doesn't use your exact numbers.  I am just showing what your true cost is of making a decision in the most extreme way.  I am guessing you have great credit and might be able to find an all interest loan at 3%.  So not doing this is costing you 1.5 million over 30 years.  Given a lower home price after 30 years or a higher rate of return this easily be much more.  IF you earned 12% over the 30 year period you would be costing yourself 16 million - do the math.  Now you are talking about doing something in-between.  Which means you will basically have the same risk factors with less return.
I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them.
If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems.  After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down.   My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house?  If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit.
Gonna have to think about this one yourself. How much is the old house worth if you sell it? How much can you rent it out for? If you can sell it for a decent amount, you might be able to pay off the current house completely, save yourself nearly 200k in interest, and maybe end up with a bit more cash. If you can rent it for a high amount, it might be worth doing that and you could possibly use that and get more money than what the interest is.   Just gotta weigh up your options, find out what you can get for the house if you rent or sell.
The issue is that housing price increases can't sustain themselves indefinitely, in comparison to the rental market. Increases drive people back to the rental market, which brings the rental market up.  Also, just as a AirBnB would drive property prices to go up, it also allows people who would otherwise not be able to buy a house to make the house purchase. Example - Loftium is a mortgage lender that will give you a cheaper loan if you put your house on AirBnB. That enables people to purchase a home when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. So over time (many years), the market should work itself out.  In the short term, AirBnB can definitely cause market fluctuations. For example, it might enable people to continue to own their homes during a depression, which would cause a supply shortage.   The only factor that affects ownership prices differently than rental prices in the long term would be regulation. Here's a [good article](http://www.sightline.org/2017/08/14/why-seattle-builds-apartments-but-vancouver-bc-builds-condos/) about that aspect specifically.
You'll be taxed when you sell the house, but not before that (or if you do some other transaction that realizes the gain, talk to your real estate attorney or accountant for more details). A Home Equity line-of-credit is simply a secured loan: it's a loan, conditioned on if you fail to pay it back, they have a lien on your house (and may be able to force you to sell it to pay the loan back).
[Diana e Kelly Shoes](http://www.dianaekelly.com/) on the internet stores may be the best strategy to find your excellent designer handbag even though sitting house. All you'll need can be a personal computer, a reliable net connection and an online payment account. Right after having these things you might be all set to purchase handbags.
Your parents may view you as profligate. Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were. You go out more often. You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement). It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space. For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs. Then they'd build up equity. So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house. The duplex plan leads to one of two things. Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half. Now you have a rental property providing income. And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house. From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending. Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood. Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends. And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone. If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage. You are responsible even if something happens to the house. For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away. Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation. So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed. Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house. Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000.