MDM wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
In any case, the "reform" seems more profitable for investors who buy-to-rent since it looks like there won't be cap on SALT deduction. Imho though, any investment in this area should take into consideration the likelihood of a downward adjustment in rents with more units turning on the market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the- ... hat-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

Rent income / loss has been treated as passive. Once your adjusted gross income goes over $100k, the tax advantage of owning investment property (ability to take losses against your active income) pretty much goes away.

So far I haven't found any articles on changes, if any, to the tax treatment of real estate income / loss.

https://investfourmore.com/2017/12/04/ ... x-law-affect-real-estate/

How will the new tax reform laws affect real estate investors?
The new tax laws aren?t doing any favors for homeowners, but the same cannot be said for real estate investors. The tax bills in the House and Senate are very business friendly. Right now, real estate investors pay much of their taxes as ordinary income. The highest tax bracket is 39.6% (which will also likely change), so on rental and flip income, most investors pay high tax rates based on how much income they make.

Most real estate investors use LLCs or S corporations to do business if they do not simply pay taxes as an individual. When you operate these types of businesses, the income passes through the corporation to the individual. In both the House and the Senate bills, pass-through tax rates would drastically change. If you were in the highest tax bracket, instead of paying 39.6%?or whatever the new highest rate will be (possibly 38)?you would pay 25% on pass-through income. The senate bill has some restrictions for those that make over $700,000, while the House bill does not. For those who have rentals or flip houses in a corporation, you will likely see big drops in your tax bill. I have 18 flips going at the moment, so this could literally save me hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes in the next couple of years. However, some of these rules may not take effect until 2019.

The new rules change the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%.

Here are some other changes that will benefit real estate investors if the changes make it into the final bill:

The depreciation schedule will decrease for rental property owners from 27.5 years to 25 years on residential properties and from 39 years to 25 years for nonresidential property.
Landlords will still be able to deduct their interest from mortgages in full on rentals they own.
Here is another article with more information on the changes with real estate.

brewster wrote:
Hold onto your hats folks. At this rate, we're looking at a 3 way trifecta of property apocalypse in 2018. We'll get reval raised taxes, revocation of said tax's deductibility, and a recession price retreat simultaneously.

Good times a-comin!

JCGuys wrote:
...

There's also the news out today regarding tax reform.

Only the interest on the first $500,000 in mortgage financing will be tax deductible. The deduction on state income taxes and property taxes will be capped at $10,000. The AMT is also planned for repeal. It's going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to live in a state with low property taxes and no income taxes. I can see New Jersey and New York City taking big hits.

bryler wrote:
Maybe this has already been asked and answered, but in the midst of the current property revaluation, does it make sense to refinance now, or wait for the assessment to be completed early next year? I assume the value determined by the revaluation will have no impact on an appraisal conducted by a bank for a refinancing?

We bought in DTJC in 2015 and our property value appears to have increased (although this is hard to tell with any degree of certainty until we start the refinance and order the appraisal from the bank, or wait for the revaluation to be completed).

and estimated it would receive roughly $4.1 million in revenue from tickets in its yearly budget...

Yvonne wrote:
Recently, State Senator Brian Stack sent a letter to his constituents asking for input on legislation that might become law. So, I have two suggestions I hope the senator will consider.

First, I want legislation on the property tax bill I receive. There is a box on the tax bill that says, "State aid used to offset local property taxes." That box includes a figure showing my taxes would be higher if the state did not give money to the various agencies that receive my tax dollars. (more)

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... e.html#incart_river_index

Yvonne wrote:
I am sorry for your loss....

Yvonne wrote:
Don't get old or have an accident and need continuous medical attention, jtjcview. When you only live for yourself and not part of a family, you develop an unrealistic view of life which is messy. I had a former neighbor who developed breast cancer and her doctor was in NYC. She could not take the PATH because anytime someone bump into her on the trains she had severe pains due to her illness so she took her car to her doctor's appointment. This is part of the messy life I am referring to.

Yvonne wrote:
Alex, you never had the responsible of bringing sick relatives to the doctor for various appointments. You live in an idealize world where no one gets sick.

jklm wrote:
Example of a high rise holding out spaces for commercial use for retail/businesses in building. Garage Parking is handed over to an outside company, i.e., LAZ.

110 First Street - 20 spaces for Car Rental company, 6+ spaces for building employees, 6+ spaces for WADLO child/school employees, EV charging station, 20+ reserved spaces, allows daily commuter parking, monthly parking for residents and non-residents.

Un-reserved parking spaces FULL from floor 1-6, 7th floor spotty and half of 8th floor has car rental and employee parking with a few un-reserved parking spaces occupied.

Parking on First Street and Warren Street is mostly people from 110 First and Modera, parking with no permits either because of lack of enforcement of Zone 4 permit parking during the day and they can park legally from M-F 4p-10a overnight and all weekend. So if they drive to work during the day - they can park for free at night and weekends.

No one from this building can claim there are no spaces available, but the parking garage is definitely not empty like everyone seems to say on JCList.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?

Hmm, I'd have thought the opposite more likely true. An apartment with a parking space is worth more, it's assessment is more, and consequently it has higher property taxes. A car space uses no city services so on that basis I'd say the owner of the apartment with the car space is subsidizing those without car spaces.

Yvonne wrote:
All new construction should have parking that is given and not charged. Then the residents would use those private parking spots and not use the streets. The fact that new development downtown charge exorbitant fees for parking is the reason parking is a problem downtown.

This week, Mexico City took a big step towards making housing more affordable and transit more efficient. Did it pass a new budget that funded new apartments, or propose a new expansion of the public transportation system? Nope, it simply eliminated parking minimums, the city regulations that impel builders to add a required amount of parking spots for every new unit of housing they create.

?It?s a 180-degree change in the approach toward parking,? Andr?s Sa?udo, a local planning consultant, told Streetsblog.

The biggest city in North America decided to limit the number of parking spaces allowed in new developments, and push policies that help convert existing spaces to different uses. The connection between affordability, transportation, and small patches of asphalt may not immediately seem apparent. But extensive studies by planners and researchers show quite the opposite. Cities?and renters?pay a big price for parking.


Mexico City just eliminated parking minimums, which may help North America?s largest urban area reshape itself into a more affordable, transit-friendly city. Shutterstock
Parking?s true price
Mandating parking not only wastes tons of valuable city real estate but it also bundles housing and parking together, making it impossible to pay for one without the other. This functions as a powerful force that not only shapes how cities look and function, but increases rent and housing costs.


One study of U.S. rental data found that forcing developers to add parking spots for new buildings contributes to 16 percent of the cost of an apartment, a cost passed down to renters. Writing in the journal Housing Policy Debate, researchers Gregory Pierce and C.J. Gabbe found that it?s not just a cost issue, it?s an equity issue. Urban dwellers who don?t own or use cars are in effect forced to subsidize parking spots for others, without any choice in the matter. The average cost of parking per renter was $142 a month, Pierce and Gabbe found, a price that is mostly paid by the urban poor.

Imagine how much easier it would be to make your rent payment if you could shave 16 percent off of your housing costs for an amenity that you don?t use. Nationwide, the researchers discovered, renters without cars end up subsidizing parking by an incredible $440 million a year. ?While many households might have chosen to pay for on-site parking in a free market, this proportion is surely lower than what has been mandated,? write Gabbe and Pierce.
....

hero69 wrote:
so bullsh_t artist fulop is gonna hire a lawyer to fight changes in school funding. if fulop was so concerned about school funding, he would stop cheating the school system and non-abbot school districts by stopping all of his freaking abatements.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... fight_school_funding.html

Two Boots Pizza owner Aaron Morrill described the required taxes and fees for businesses as "death by a thousand cuts." Evelyn Padin, a lawyer who also owns the Hard Grove Cafe, said she already pays for a sidewalk cafe license, a liquor license and for private garbage collection.

"It's constant paying," Padin said.

Dinger wrote:
You folks know this guy isn't even licensed?

bodhipooh wrote:
Definitely some props to the city, the mayor, and DPW. Most streets seem in very good shape. The municipal response to this snow event is head and shoulders above anything I had ever seen during the Healy years. They did a great job and deserve some praise and recognition.

Street Sweeping is canceled for, Thursday, Feb. 9th, due to the forecasted snow storm. Garbage Collection is still on as scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday night.

Yvonne wrote:
You know what ...bike? Poland did not accept any immigrants and guess what? There are no immigrants blowing up bombs in Poland. This is something to think about.