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

On 1/15/2017 9:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, 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 **** 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/15...lohmar-germany



I love those videos

At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?

What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?

I vote for "not cheap".


It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
service when needed.

I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
to pay for".

"If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
"If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
"If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."

Correct

Buying and affording are very different animals.

Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.

I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
don't have an issue with mortgages.

Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
all went to hell in a hand basket.

If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.


Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.

What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
didn't do so well, of course.


It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
sell in 2008.

I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
paid for it).

In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
have a higher rate.

Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
to live where it's more expensive than necessary.

Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.

Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
government services than I.

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

You don't think their kids go to school, their families protected by
police and fire, or colllect welfare?


Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.

That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
by the "needs" of the community.

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

Well look at this way. Mr. Jones lived in an apartment most of his
life, he suddenly qualifies for a 3600 sq ft home because of the
"government guaranteed loans". He is married and the kids are gone
before he bought the house. He was so marginal on being able to afford
the house in the first place that now he cannot make payments as the
escrow has gone up as a direct result of the home increasing in value
30% in the last 5 years. There was a reason he was in an apartment most
of his adult life, and not the government has provided a way for him to
live in a neighborhood that he would not normally have been able to
afford. He is not moving out until he is forced out. See where I'm
going here... ;~)

Government guarantees (ick) or not, PITI of 30% is about max. The
problem isn't the house but the cars and credit card debt *after* the
home purchase. That's a choice.



This has have happened now instead of then because of rising costs to
maintain the houses and pay taxes owed. Now the homes need to be
maintained and that expense adds.

I'm not following you. The costs today are similar to the costs ten
years ago (pre-crash).

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

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