What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Status
Not open for further replies.
dxmnkd316 said:
LTCG is still 15% plus state right? Or did the Dems fix that?
interest deductions come off at the top marginal rate assuming you qualify. That's at least 20% plus state. so there's a chance you could make up some of that on taxes.

Unless you're banking on dying without selling the investments. Step up in basis basically wipes out the taxes on the gains assuming you stay under the inheritance tax.
Click to expand...

For that type of loan interest deduction would never come into play unless you had a funky tax situation(at least for a married couple.)
 
dxmnkd316 said:
So uhhhhh you're making the investment case even more compelling?
Click to expand...

I think French Rage’s situation is fairly unique. My guess would be if you go back it’s very rare for treasury’s to be yielding double the cost of a mortgage. I think in that situation(assuming you’re not getting killed in taxes) the treasury’s make sense. The more realistic scenario is something along the lines of the return on the s&p 500 being 300 bp’s more than the cost of a mortgage. At that point there are a lot of other factors that come in to play versus how it looks on paper.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Side note: I was thinking about getting back into our employee stock program and did some math. In order for even a 15% discount to be worth it over 25 years of compounding growth, your stock would need to match the s&p500's total return at like a 95%+ clip. These programs should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Abolished because they're bad for the employee or too good for the employee?
 
Drew S. said:
I think French Rage’s situation is fairly unique. My guess would be if you go back it’s very rare for treasury’s to be yielding double the cost of a mortgage. I think in that situation(assuming you’re not getting killed in taxes) the treasury’s make sense. The more realistic scenario is something along the lines of the return on the s&p 500 being 300 bp’s more than the cost of a mortgage. At that point there are a lot of other factors that come in to play versus how it looks on paper.
Click to expand...

If the investment return is still reliably 300 bp above the mortgage rate, it would still be well within your interest to invest the extra money. The key word is "reliably", since the long term return rate of the market isn't always that rate over various short or medium terms. So if you happen to be investing in one of the down times, you could end up behind the mortgage rate. But if it's Treasuries, just plain old Treasuries, (practically) 100% reliable Treasuries, then yes, go for the investing. (Still diversify your portfolio, though, as Wu Tang says to.)
 
Drew S. said:
I think French Rage’s situation is fairly unique. My guess would be if you go back it’s very rare for treasury’s to be yielding double the cost of a mortgage. I think in that situation(assuming you’re not getting killed in taxes) the treasury’s make sense. The more realistic scenario is something along the lines of the return on the s&p 500 being 300 bp’s more than the cost of a mortgage. At that point there are a lot of other factors that come in to play versus how it looks on paper.
Click to expand...
How it “looks” on paper? So we should just ignore math and go with our guts?

you are ridiculous.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Holy ****. Is that including taxes and insurance....?
Click to expand...

Yes to both. This was also done using the basic calculator on Zillow, so YMMV. But it's a ballpark figure. It's insanely costly to live in the non-ghetto parts of the SW Chicago Burbs currently.
 
Kepler said:
Elmo gets spanked by his own platform.
Click to expand...

That headline says the plans were nixed but nothing in that post says anything about that. All it shows is that there is a community note about why he shouldn't do it, which is written by X users and carries no weight. It was funny when it happened though!

Google Search shows no hints of there being any changes.
 
Trump: I had oil at $40/bbl, I mean I had it down to less than zero for a period of time...

MLd97gs.jpg

i2meSHx.jpg


He, nor his followers, understand *why* the price of oil was that low.
 
LynahFan said:
How it “looks” on paper? So we should just ignore math and go with our guts?

you are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

To be a little fair to him, my original point was that before Treasury rates went so high, even with a 2.5% mortgage rate, I still preferred to do half investing and half prepaying. I would admit at that point investing still would have come out ahead of prepaying, but I've never liked debt and preferred to retire it a little quicker if possible, even at a slight cost to the long term numbers. Treasury rates making the investing numbers even more solid pushed me to go all in on investing and not doing any prepaying.

That said, for quite a number of posts Drew then contended the numbers looked better for prepaying, even though they clearly did not, and now is attempting to switch gears by bring personal non-financial considerations into account, and while those can still be important to one's overall decision process, that is not the argument he's been attempting to make for some time now.
 
French Rage said:
To be a little fair to him, my original point was that before Treasury rates went so high, even with a 2.5% mortgage rate, I still preferred to do half investing and half prepaying. I would admit at that point investing still would have come out ahead of prepaying, but I've never liked debt and preferred to retire it a little quicker if possible, even at a slight cost to the long term numbers. Treasury rates making the investing numbers even more solid pushed me to go all in on investing and not doing any prepaying.

That said, for quite a number of posts Drew then contended the numbers looked better for prepaying, even though they clearly did not, and now is attempting to switch gears by bring personal non-financial considerations into account, and while those can still be important to one's overall decision process, that is not the argument he's been attempting to make for some time now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much:

Drew: math, math, math.
Everyone else: uhhhh.....the math says to do the opposite
Drew: well, you have to think outside the math

I don't even disagree that values and priorities should factor into these types of decisions. If being debt-free sooner is "worth" it to you (in terms of satisfaction, peace of mind, whatever you want to call it) to have slightly less money at the start of retirement, then by all means, go that route. But don't argue that the reason to go that route is to come out ahead in strict dollars and cents and then pivot when you finally realize that you were wrong, but without conceding that you were wrong.
 
Elmo is now blocking all the people complaining about the block feature going away. (He is tweeting about it) He has already block catturd (Twitter Con troll) and James Woods.

Elmo is going to have an evil lair in a volcano soon...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top