This reminds me of a couple of visits I made to Detroit with a previous boyfriend. We stayed in a spare room at his brother's house: an absolutely gorgeous 3-storey, 5-bedroom Victorian house with...
This reminds me of a couple of visits I made to Detroit with a previous boyfriend. We stayed in a spare room at his brother's house: an absolutely gorgeous 3-storey, 5-bedroom Victorian house with original leaded glass windows, in a beautiful leafy neighborhood filled with row upon row of similar houses – and most of these were in various states of abandonment. It was obvious which homes were still in use because the occupants employed various strategies to reduce the costs of ownership. For example, plastic was commonly stapled over windows to effect double or triple glazing, and many rooms (often entire floors) were boarded up and orphaned from the main living areas.
The house where we stayed was in a similar state. One of the most striking things to me was the dumbwaiter: it was no longer functional because the shaft had been co-opted for electrical conduit, extension cords, and Ethernet cables. The contrast of historical luxury with modern utility gave me distinct post-apocalyptic vibes.
While we were in Detroit, we wandered through a variety of neighborhoods (we both loved looking at old architecture). When we walked through communities with much smaller, more modest homes, they seemed to have a much higher occupancy rate and better maintenance. My then-boyfriend's brother told me that it probably would have been financially wiser to buy a smaller house, even though they were on the expensive side, but he had a particular love for these old Victorian houses; it was his dream to some day to restore his and properly care for it, but he just didn't have the income yet.
Since then, I have thought a lot about the gentrification in the formerly low-income neighborhood where I grew up. Modest 1950s ranch houses filled with working class families are rapidly being knocked out and replaced with enormous McMansions (on par with the Victorian houses I saw in Detroit). They sell for exorbitant prices, but a large portion of them just seem to be bought and sold repeatedly without ever being occupied. When a new family does move in, they usually sell again after just two or three years, and I find myself wondering: are they flippers as well, or did they bite off more than they can chew?
I wanted to offer additional perspective as another 3-storey, 6-bedroom 120-year-old Victorian House... enjoyer. Some years ago, when our house needed maintenance and we were barely getting by,...
I wanted to offer additional perspective as another 3-storey, 6-bedroom 120-year-old Victorian House... enjoyer. Some years ago, when our house needed maintenance and we were barely getting by, walking around the house, knowing that several things needed to be repaired and that they simply weren't going to be because there wasn't the time or money to do so was like carrying a millstone around the neck.
However, the "good bones" line also rings true. When things changed and we could afford to start making repairs and even improvements, we were able to enjoy living in a house that had no major structural issues and probably never would. I have a colleage who lives in a lovely modern, recently built home, but who also shares how the house is shifting and needs these fiberglass reinforced panels to address structural issues and the duct work collapsed, and so on.
Modifying these old houses for climate change is a beast. But it is nice to live in a house that was well built to begin with, even if it does show it's age.
This is why it's important to have financial education at the school level. Lives didn't necessarily have to be ruined here, but they had to go into it knowing they'd have to sell the house...
This is why it's important to have financial education at the school level. Lives didn't necessarily have to be ruined here, but they had to go into it knowing they'd have to sell the house immediately and move (I understand it can be disappointing for the kids). Take out a loan to pay the bills? No!
Yeah that’s what I expected to happen during the build up. I was thinking “Oh they took care of the mortgage, but what about property taxes and bills? I’d just sell it immediately, make a bunch of...
Yeah that’s what I expected to happen during the build up. I was thinking “Oh they took care of the mortgage, but what about property taxes and bills? I’d just sell it immediately, make a bunch of money, then buy a nice smaller house in cash with no mortgage.” You could even keep the nice TVs and laptops!
I think they should just include a financial consultant with the house. Would only add a few thousand dollars in costs to each episode.
It defeats the stated purpose of the show though. (The real purpose being ratings and good PR at the expense of the family) No one wants to watch a family that's struggling have their home...
It defeats the stated purpose of the show though. (The real purpose being ratings and good PR at the expense of the family)
No one wants to watch a family that's struggling have their home remodeled and then have to sell that home.
If people know how shitty it was now when it wasn't an official part of the show process, why do you think no one would have figured it out if it were?
If people know how shitty it was now when it wasn't an official part of the show process, why do you think no one would have figured it out if it were?
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you mean that people would learn most families on the show sell the house after that doesn't sound like it would affect the show much. 99% of people just watch...
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you mean that people would learn most families on the show sell the house after that doesn't sound like it would affect the show much. 99% of people just watch the show and then watch something else after. The 1% that would be in the know would leave that fact for punch-bowl gossip. People would say "Wow that's crazy!" move on and most of them would watch as much Extreme Makeover as they did before.
I think that if it's common knowledge and actively the intent of the show most people would not enjoy the show, the kayfabe of reality TV only stretches so far. People have soured on the show now,...
I think that if it's common knowledge and actively the intent of the show most people would not enjoy the show, the kayfabe of reality TV only stretches so far.
People have soured on the show now, how long would it have lasted if they'd known how shitty the impact was on the families then?
I think that the negative financial impact is a big reason people have soured on the show now, rather than feeling nostalgic for it, and potentially having a setup where it wasn't as financially...
I think that the negative financial impact is a big reason people have soured on the show now, rather than feeling nostalgic for it, and potentially having a setup where it wasn't as financially devastating for them could have prevented some of that. But I'm not convinced that just expecting everyone to sell immediately would accomplish that so idk.
Yeah I just think people wouldn't find that show "feel good" and it wouldn't have been popular to begin with, because the news articles would immediately have been about sad kids or families...
Yeah I just think people wouldn't find that show "feel good" and it wouldn't have been popular to begin with, because the news articles would immediately have been about sad kids or families selling the house.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't believe that "no one would know" or that it wouldn't matter. Maybe I'm too optimistic about humans.
Back when I was in high school, the local Chevy dealership sponsored the athletics program and would do a contest during homecoming football games: kick a field goal, get a small cash prize, do it...
Back when I was in high school, the local Chevy dealership sponsored the athletics program and would do a contest during homecoming football games: kick a field goal, get a small cash prize, do it again from farther back, get a bigger cash prize, but if you kick it a third time from a much farther distance, you could take home $5k or $10k (I can't remember which)...or a Corvette.
One year, one of the teacher's kids actually kicked all three...and decided to go with the Corvette.
If you ever win a car in a contest, it's taxed as income at market value, so if you won a $50k car and were in the 22% tax bracket, assuming the car doesn't push you into a higher bracket, that's $11k in federal taxes, plus state and local taxes (including sales tax, also assessed at market value), registration, insurance, maintenance, and paying extra for premium gas.
They should have taken the cash. You still pay income tax on it, but at least you have cash in hand to pay those taxes with. They went from house poor to house broke and had to sell it in less than a year. They ultimately ended up worse off than if they had taken the cash. Not that they weren't trying to keep it by taking on part-time jobs to supplement their income, it just wasn't enough.
After seeing that saga unfold (and cars are fairly cheap compared to houses), it boggles my mind that anyone would think gifting a massive house to anyone who isn't already rich is a good idea.
Yet another thing that only makes sense for the well off (not the wealthy beyond the gap. They would never give a shit). Let's say a family making $150k gross, all caught up on bills, and keeping...
Yet another thing that only makes sense for the well off (not the wealthy beyond the gap. They would never give a shit).
Let's say a family making $150k gross, all caught up on bills, and keeping back plenty from each check (maybe as a federal tax withholding, for example) can cover the tax bill from the prize. So if they spend a tax refund and some savings on the tax, they have a Corvette for a big discount. Anyone who can't afford the tax bill is best served taking the much smaller cash prize and paying the tax bill on that. But of course the net gain is a smaller fraction of the value of the car.
It's an awful trick that comes from sponsor agreements between the contest holder and the brand of car. It's better for the contest holder if the person takes the car because it's probably provided free from the sponsor.
When "rewards" are as regressive as the tax code, this is the dystopia we get. All parties are against the poor, as usual.
You can just sell the car immediately. You have one whole year to come up with the liquidity to pay the income tax on it; you can probably sell the corvette in less than a week for a fair price....
You can just sell the car immediately. You have one whole year to come up with the liquidity to pay the income tax on it; you can probably sell the corvette in less than a week for a fair price.
It becomes a trap because people want to keep the corvette. This is the endowment effect - people are more likely to hold onto an item than if they had the option to buy it. But that's on the people getting the car on the end.
True, but you also have to be able to pay registration, sales tax, etc before you can re-sell it, plus insurance to legally drive it off the lot unless you want to pay for delivery. And if you...
True, but you also have to be able to pay registration, sales tax, etc before you can re-sell it, plus insurance to legally drive it off the lot unless you want to pay for delivery. And if you can't afford a Corvette to begin with, I imagine it would be difficult convincing the bank to give you a loan to pay all the fees associated with it. (Edit: actually, having dealt with that Chevy dealership, I wouldn't be surprised if they were scummy enough to finance that...) Maybe if you already had a buyer lined up.
I'd be curious if someone's written a breakdown on what you can expect to net in such a situation.
You wouldn't pay sales tax, it's not like you're buying it again. Registration and title should be <$1k. Insurance should be at most a few hundred, considering you only need one month of it....
You wouldn't pay sales tax, it's not like you're buying it again. Registration and title should be <$1k. Insurance should be at most a few hundred, considering you only need one month of it. That's all credit-card sized.
Most dealers will be more than happy to take it and give you cash on hand same day, but you'll get a worse price, of course. Carsandbids or the like will net a better price, but will take some effort.
This depends on the state, in some states you need to pay sales tax on the value of the car or sale price (whichever is greater) when you title the vehicle. If you buy from a dealership they take...
This depends on the state, in some states you need to pay sales tax on the value of the car or sale price (whichever is greater) when you title the vehicle. If you buy from a dealership they take care of it then - but if you buy it private sale, out of state, or receive it as a gift/prize, you’d owe the tax when you file the paperwork
The Always Sunny episode where the gang does an extreme home makeover is closer to reality than I realized. Episode spoilers They break into a family's house, kidnap them, open a credit card in...
The Always Sunny episode where the gang does an extreme home makeover is closer to reality than I realized.
Episode spoilers
They break into a family's house, kidnap them, open a credit card in their name, and then burn the house down. In the end of the episode a judge awards the family a mansion that one of the main characters had just inherited.
In a later episode one of the family shows up again at the mansion. It is then revealed that he's actually just the landscaper. The family had to sell the mansion because they couldn't afford the taxes on the mansion they were given.
My math isn't mathing. The house and mortgage were completely paid for but they're hit with an unexpected $2000 electric bill they couldn't afford. So they took out a $400,000 loan to pay it. Huh?
My math isn't mathing. The house and mortgage were completely paid for but they're hit with an unexpected $2000 electric bill they couldn't afford. So they took out a $400,000 loan to pay it. Huh?
The loans built up over a period of time and I think they may have already been in debt. The mother said they tried to hold onto the house as long as they could, but just kept getting deeper...
The loans built up over a period of time and I think they may have already been in debt. The mother said they tried to hold onto the house as long as they could, but just kept getting deeper underwater in the bills. The electric bill was also just one example expense for the expensive house. There were also other things, like property taxes, which the were mentioned in the news segments.
This reminds me of a couple of visits I made to Detroit with a previous boyfriend. We stayed in a spare room at his brother's house: an absolutely gorgeous 3-storey, 5-bedroom Victorian house with original leaded glass windows, in a beautiful leafy neighborhood filled with row upon row of similar houses – and most of these were in various states of abandonment. It was obvious which homes were still in use because the occupants employed various strategies to reduce the costs of ownership. For example, plastic was commonly stapled over windows to effect double or triple glazing, and many rooms (often entire floors) were boarded up and orphaned from the main living areas.
The house where we stayed was in a similar state. One of the most striking things to me was the dumbwaiter: it was no longer functional because the shaft had been co-opted for electrical conduit, extension cords, and Ethernet cables. The contrast of historical luxury with modern utility gave me distinct post-apocalyptic vibes.
While we were in Detroit, we wandered through a variety of neighborhoods (we both loved looking at old architecture). When we walked through communities with much smaller, more modest homes, they seemed to have a much higher occupancy rate and better maintenance. My then-boyfriend's brother told me that it probably would have been financially wiser to buy a smaller house, even though they were on the expensive side, but he had a particular love for these old Victorian houses; it was his dream to some day to restore his and properly care for it, but he just didn't have the income yet.
Since then, I have thought a lot about the gentrification in the formerly low-income neighborhood where I grew up. Modest 1950s ranch houses filled with working class families are rapidly being knocked out and replaced with enormous McMansions (on par with the Victorian houses I saw in Detroit). They sell for exorbitant prices, but a large portion of them just seem to be bought and sold repeatedly without ever being occupied. When a new family does move in, they usually sell again after just two or three years, and I find myself wondering: are they flippers as well, or did they bite off more than they can chew?
I wanted to offer additional perspective as another 3-storey, 6-bedroom 120-year-old Victorian House... enjoyer. Some years ago, when our house needed maintenance and we were barely getting by, walking around the house, knowing that several things needed to be repaired and that they simply weren't going to be because there wasn't the time or money to do so was like carrying a millstone around the neck.
However, the "good bones" line also rings true. When things changed and we could afford to start making repairs and even improvements, we were able to enjoy living in a house that had no major structural issues and probably never would. I have a colleage who lives in a lovely modern, recently built home, but who also shares how the house is shifting and needs these fiberglass reinforced panels to address structural issues and the duct work collapsed, and so on.
Modifying these old houses for climate change is a beast. But it is nice to live in a house that was well built to begin with, even if it does show it's age.
This is why it's important to have financial education at the school level. Lives didn't necessarily have to be ruined here, but they had to go into it knowing they'd have to sell the house immediately and move (I understand it can be disappointing for the kids). Take out a loan to pay the bills? No!
Yeah that’s what I expected to happen during the build up. I was thinking “Oh they took care of the mortgage, but what about property taxes and bills? I’d just sell it immediately, make a bunch of money, then buy a nice smaller house in cash with no mortgage.” You could even keep the nice TVs and laptops!
I think they should just include a financial consultant with the house. Would only add a few thousand dollars in costs to each episode.
It defeats the stated purpose of the show though. (The real purpose being ratings and good PR at the expense of the family)
No one wants to watch a family that's struggling have their home remodeled and then have to sell that home.
But no one would have to know.
If people know how shitty it was now when it wasn't an official part of the show process, why do you think no one would have figured it out if it were?
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you mean that people would learn most families on the show sell the house after that doesn't sound like it would affect the show much. 99% of people just watch the show and then watch something else after. The 1% that would be in the know would leave that fact for punch-bowl gossip. People would say "Wow that's crazy!" move on and most of them would watch as much Extreme Makeover as they did before.
I think that if it's common knowledge and actively the intent of the show most people would not enjoy the show, the kayfabe of reality TV only stretches so far.
People have soured on the show now, how long would it have lasted if they'd known how shitty the impact was on the families then?
I think that the negative financial impact is a big reason people have soured on the show now, rather than feeling nostalgic for it, and potentially having a setup where it wasn't as financially devastating for them could have prevented some of that. But I'm not convinced that just expecting everyone to sell immediately would accomplish that so idk.
Yeah I just think people wouldn't find that show "feel good" and it wouldn't have been popular to begin with, because the news articles would immediately have been about sad kids or families selling the house.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't believe that "no one would know" or that it wouldn't matter. Maybe I'm too optimistic about humans.
Back when I was in high school, the local Chevy dealership sponsored the athletics program and would do a contest during homecoming football games: kick a field goal, get a small cash prize, do it again from farther back, get a bigger cash prize, but if you kick it a third time from a much farther distance, you could take home $5k or $10k (I can't remember which)...or a Corvette.
One year, one of the teacher's kids actually kicked all three...and decided to go with the Corvette.
If you ever win a car in a contest, it's taxed as income at market value, so if you won a $50k car and were in the 22% tax bracket, assuming the car doesn't push you into a higher bracket, that's $11k in federal taxes, plus state and local taxes (including sales tax, also assessed at market value), registration, insurance, maintenance, and paying extra for premium gas.
They should have taken the cash. You still pay income tax on it, but at least you have cash in hand to pay those taxes with. They went from house poor to house broke and had to sell it in less than a year. They ultimately ended up worse off than if they had taken the cash. Not that they weren't trying to keep it by taking on part-time jobs to supplement their income, it just wasn't enough.
After seeing that saga unfold (and cars are fairly cheap compared to houses), it boggles my mind that anyone would think gifting a massive house to anyone who isn't already rich is a good idea.
Yet another thing that only makes sense for the well off (not the wealthy beyond the gap. They would never give a shit).
Let's say a family making $150k gross, all caught up on bills, and keeping back plenty from each check (maybe as a federal tax withholding, for example) can cover the tax bill from the prize. So if they spend a tax refund and some savings on the tax, they have a Corvette for a big discount. Anyone who can't afford the tax bill is best served taking the much smaller cash prize and paying the tax bill on that. But of course the net gain is a smaller fraction of the value of the car.
It's an awful trick that comes from sponsor agreements between the contest holder and the brand of car. It's better for the contest holder if the person takes the car because it's probably provided free from the sponsor.
When "rewards" are as regressive as the tax code, this is the dystopia we get. All parties are against the poor, as usual.
You can just sell the car immediately. You have one whole year to come up with the liquidity to pay the income tax on it; you can probably sell the corvette in less than a week for a fair price.
It becomes a trap because people want to keep the corvette. This is the endowment effect - people are more likely to hold onto an item than if they had the option to buy it. But that's on the people getting the car on the end.
True, but you also have to be able to pay registration, sales tax, etc before you can re-sell it, plus insurance to legally drive it off the lot unless you want to pay for delivery. And if you can't afford a Corvette to begin with, I imagine it would be difficult convincing the bank to give you a loan to pay all the fees associated with it. (Edit: actually, having dealt with that Chevy dealership, I wouldn't be surprised if they were scummy enough to finance that...) Maybe if you already had a buyer lined up.
I'd be curious if someone's written a breakdown on what you can expect to net in such a situation.
You wouldn't pay sales tax, it's not like you're buying it again. Registration and title should be <$1k. Insurance should be at most a few hundred, considering you only need one month of it. That's all credit-card sized.
Most dealers will be more than happy to take it and give you cash on hand same day, but you'll get a worse price, of course. Carsandbids or the like will net a better price, but will take some effort.
This depends on the state, in some states you need to pay sales tax on the value of the car or sale price (whichever is greater) when you title the vehicle. If you buy from a dealership they take care of it then - but if you buy it private sale, out of state, or receive it as a gift/prize, you’d owe the tax when you file the paperwork
The Always Sunny episode where the gang does an extreme home makeover is closer to reality than I realized.
Episode spoilers
They break into a family's house, kidnap them, open a credit card in their name, and then burn the house down. In the end of the episode a judge awards the family a mansion that one of the main characters had just inherited.
In a later episode one of the family shows up again at the mansion. It is then revealed that he's actually just the landscaper. The family had to sell the mansion because they couldn't afford the taxes on the mansion they were given.
That is a great episode ;)
My math isn't mathing. The house and mortgage were completely paid for but they're hit with an unexpected $2000 electric bill they couldn't afford. So they took out a $400,000 loan to pay it. Huh?
The loans built up over a period of time and I think they may have already been in debt. The mother said they tried to hold onto the house as long as they could, but just kept getting deeper underwater in the bills. The electric bill was also just one example expense for the expensive house. There were also other things, like property taxes, which the were mentioned in the news segments.