OT - Bank of America

Sometimes called 'Price Club'?

That's how it is (used to be, anyway) in the UK and Australia. Years ago I read in a UK photography magazine: "If you are industrious and sell your photograph, you pay tax. If you are lucky and win a prize with your photograph, you don't pay tax."

Perce

Here in TN we have no Costco, no BJs, no Trader Joes. And Sam's Club is too far to drive for practicality. :(

You live near the edge of the earth??

Lou

Sometimes called 'Price Club'?

It was called Price Club. If you try to pull up priceclub on Google it goes to Costco.

I've never been to BJ's. I went to Sam's club on a free trial and I didn't like it as much as Costco. That was a very long time ago. Maybe better now.

Costco services are pretty impressive: Funerals, caskets, houses, cars, vacations, financial securities, accounting services.... I don't know what BJ's and Sam's Club have but I've recieved several thousands off of selling/buying houses through Costco rebates.

Price club and Costco were competitors then merged (or Costco bought Price Club). BJ's is also a warehouse club but has more items. Sam's is very similar to Costco but Costco has better stuff. I read that Sam's prices may be better on many items. Both have great rotisserie chicken at about $5.00

Lou

Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.

You have to have a need, too. I heard Barbara Bush say her husband has fallen in love with Sam's. "But what am I to do with a 55-gallon drum of jalapenos?"

Some time in the remote past, our betters decided it was in the best interest of the nation to encourage home ownership, hence the income tax deduction for mortgage interest - an incentive, if you will.

In 1976, under the Carter administration, the Community Redevelopment Act was passed to further encourage home ownership by those who couldn't really afford it - the loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac.

Now both Fannies don't make loans themselves, they just semi-guarantee them.

In 1995, under the Clinton administration, new regulations were put in place to encourage banks and lending institutions to make these dodgy loans ("if you don't make the loan we'll shut your ass down" was the operative phraseology of the regulation).

Anybody who could stand up, hear thunder, and see lightning got a loan.

No problem as long as housing prices kept increasing. Couldn't make the balloon payment? No problem - just refinance the house.

In about twelve years, everybody who wanted a house had one. The bottom fell out of the housing market. Mortgages could not be refinanced at a higher value. The world's economic system came tumbling down.

But, the goal of the liberals was achieved: universal home ownership was achieved.

Next target: universal health care.

. That makes a lot of sense. But; Not that way in Canada. No deduction of interest from income tax! Either federal or provincial). However if/when you sell your family home and make a profit there is no income tax payable. Also there is no income tax on 'winnings', prizes or gifts.

____________________

In the USA, there is no tax on the increased value of the home when you sell up to US $500,000 more than the purchase price. Also, you can subtract from your sales value all costs to improve your home during ownership. If you invest US $100,000 to improve your home, you can sell it for up to US $600,000 more than the purchase price without incurring tax on the gain. If you still sell for more, you only pay tax on the excess. Pretty hard to do, especially in this market, except for a tiny fraction of extremely high-priced homes.

Or those like me who have owned the house for 30 years.....

There is no tax on the increase as long as you take the money and reinvest in another home within a certain period of time. You only owe taxes if you decide not to reinvest in another single family home within that time frame AND the total profits from first home to last don't go over the $500,000, a little easier to do, but not much.

Neither is yours either. Actually both are right and both are wrong as both (along with Greenspan's too lax too long money policies, changes in the way both mortgage and banks were regulated in the early 00s, and other things too numerous to mention) all put us in the jackpot we are in today (including to a certain extent nothing worse than returning to the mean).

Smitty Two wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com:

I'm with you, Smitty Two. It just isn't any good for a pinco like me to throw money away. Responsible finances are a must. You can't afford it? Don't get it as a homeowner, and also don't give it as a bank. I don't buy it as a Clinton imperative at all.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman- snipped-for-privacy@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:

That is so old and forgotten that I can't remember when that was phased out. Now it is 500K more than basis (price paid plus improvements) is tax free. Real conditions apply, and you better consult qualified tax help.

Don't know about relative store counts, but there aren't any within an hour of here, and some states seem to be skipped entirely. They seem to be cherry-picking their store placements. Nothing wrong with that, of course- you go where the money is. But that means a large percentage of the population will never hear of you, much less walk through your door.

-- aem sends...

WRONG. That law was replaced with the $500K limit with no requirement to buy another house about 10 years ago or so.

There are no Walmarts in:

• New York City
• Boston
• San Francisco
• Detroit
• Chicago
• Washington, D.C.
• There's one Walmart in Los Angeles and two in Philadelphia

Meanwhile,

• There are 17 Walmarts in Houston

There may be more to store locations than cherry-picking by the management. Can anyone guess another reason?

You actually believe two Democratic administrations, with bills authored by Barney Frank, were trying to do a favor for investment bankers?

That really doesn't pass the giggle-test. Really.