All Forum Posts by: Mike Andrews

The bankruptcy will also halt any foreclosure proceedings on his home. I'm not entirely sure about commercial properties, but I think filing for bankruptcy stops those as well.

It sounds like your friend is a good candidate to file chapter 7 bankruptcy. If he's already gone through 2 divorces and has been unable to work AND has liens against his property, this may be his best hope.

From everything you've said it sounds like loaning him money will be tantamount to lighting it on fire and flushing it down the toilet. Instead, introduce him to a good bankruptcy lawyer and tell them to have a conversation. So many people are afraid to file for chapter 7 because of the stigma attached, but a foreclosure on top of everything else that's happened to him will be much, much worse.

Also, if you loan him the money and then he files, you go to the back of the line to get paid back.

If Tom Wallace is moving into his next project property, wouldn't that mean he is going to buy it? I think a 1031 would apply in that situation and because he would have a new primary residence that he owns, wouldn't that qualify him for the deduction? I think Dave T hit the nail on the head about the timing, but I'm not understanding why this new project property (if he's living in it) would not qualify him for the same capital gains extension in three years. Maybe I'm missing something. Taxes and law aren't my areas of expertise.

James Vann I think we are definitely on the same page. My only disagreement was about the way to accomplish that. I think that politicians should be more focused on eliminating the departments than on lowering taxes. Right now the ideaology seems to be, "reduce taxes, starve the beast, eliminate bureaucracy." I think it should be, "eliminate bureaucracy, balance budget, reduce taxes." We both want the same thing. I'm just saying (and I think you agree) that this ND idea is a bad one.

Is it possible to do this in reverse, Laura Al-Amery? For example, could I host a bunch of postlets ads on my website that were in my area? I checked the features of the site and didn't see that particular question answered.

My only disagreement with James Vann is about the idea of starving the beast. I don't think that's the answer to ending the massive bureaucracy. I think the answer is just eliminating it. I hear people say we can't just abolish government departments, but is that really much more difficult than cutting off tax revenue? These bureaucrats are like leeches or symbiotes and they will find somewhere to feed. I think the problem has to be taken on directly, rather than indirectly by cutting off tax revenues. I also think these people would claim that the property tax revenue wasn't going to them and that ALL OF IT went to necessities like roads, schools, policemen, etc. and those departments would get cut.

The people at Fannie are crooks. You're better off not having to deal with them.

Here you go:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/us-usa-economy-housing-idUSBRE83G0T120120430

But I completely agree with you. This is due to natural market correction from the boom. Without the push of subprime mortgages, relaxed credit requirements and the president asserting that everyone in America should own a home, rates were naturally going to drop.

(I found an article from blackswag.com that attests to lower rates of owner-occupied homes, but I don't know that I trust anything from blackswag.com in regard to real estate.)

Yeah...I was saying I think Bakersfield DOES suck and that he shouldn't lump the rest of California in with it.

I, too, was kidding...sort of. =)

I almost forgot, North Dakota is one of the leaders in receiving federal aid. Shouldn't they look to become self-sufficient before trying to cut taxes?