OlDawg

Lady Dawgs 57 Austin Anderson 36 Final La Porte moves on to 5A D1 Regional Finals

Lady Dawgs 47 Austin Anderson 25 Start of 4th period

Lady Dawgs 26 Austin Anderson 11 Half

Nothing wrong with that. It’s probably better for most. Like I say, our stuff is pretty boring. But, I like boring…and dividends. When we buy, it’s after as much research as we can do because we intend to hold. I feel like, if it’s good enough to buy in the first place, I want it to be good enough to hold. Not just some flash in the pan. I encourage everyone that can to get in the Market as early as possible. Like @thetragichippy said, history is on your side with patience.

Yes & no. I have a broker with Ed Jones. But, I usually do the investigation, check with him because he has all the access to Morningstar that I don’t, he’s a CFP we’ve used for well over a decade & knows us, and he watches everything closer than us. So, kind of a team effort. The NLR I spoke about, I told him I wanted nuclear for the AI expansion, and he researched this ETF as the ‘best’ one in his mind. He’s recommended some things, and others we ask him to purchase. We typically buy and hold. We’re not what you’d call traders. Our holdings are what most would consider boring.

I am still holding. I buy good companies with solid history, and good divvies. ETF’s are just a basket like mutual funds that are treated like stock, so they’re more liquid and don’t have the fees mutual funds typically do. I was hoping to buy more of one I own already purchased last year (NLR - a side play on AI & nuclear power generation), but they didn’t drop as much as I’d hoped and I also got a little skittish. NLR is the ticker if interested. We bought about a year ago. It’s done what I’d hoped so far. I think nuclear is a good bet with all the data centers coming online. But, just a guess like the casino. Hopefully, a little better odds. We obviously have a majority in investments as it’s our income. I move around. But, don’t ever remove except for a monthly check for us to live on.

Y’all go back and forth so much, it’s hard to tell. Do you feel comfortable enough to invest extra in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etf’s, or anything besides fixed income right now? I ask to see how comfortable you—or anyone else who wants to reply—is in the economy right now.

U.S. has breached trade deal and Europe is ready to retaliate, top trade lawmaker tells CNBC [Hidden Content] Remember, the EU is our largest trading partner. This was a key trade deal.

For what, making up less than 1/2 of the loss? I take it you’ve bought more then today since you feel so good about it? You should be worried about long-term issues. EU has delayed signing their trade deal, as have all the rest. I may not have slammed him for the markets. But, he’s doing a great deal of damage. The ones who slam for a day swing in the markets up or down, don’t need to be in the market.

What about them?

Trump Claims He Doesn’t Need Congress For Tariffs—Why That’s True Yet Misleading [Hidden Content]

I’ll pass. If I retired way early, not sure the best advice is to take advice from someone who didn’t. lol

Typically, I’m a selective buyer in situations like this. It’s one of the reasons I was able to retire very early, and live off investments for the last 10+ years. Not right now. His behavior and its effects for longer term uncertainty have me on hold. Not long after his 150 days are up, we’ll have mid-terms to add another level of uncertainty. I’ll just watch and hold for a bit. Not a seller. Just not a buyer.

He’ll try to justify another section to impose ‘tougher’ tariffs long term according to his thinking. Since he’s flapping his yaps again, he’s already providing ammo for future lawsuits. The ‘other means’ you mention aren’t illegal by default. They have to be justified, and appropriately used. But, there will still be lawsuits. There will still be uncertainty for businesses. That means slower growth for the economy as a whole.

Not sure what you’re asking. IEEPA was done immediately upon SCOTUS ruling. Tariff collection under IEEPA was stopped.

My thoughts on the situation right now--and knowing I am not a policy by tariff fan--are I'm not sure why Trump didn't just tell the American people they just received about a 50% price cut to help with affordability, that the original intent of the global tariffs was accomplished with some better trade deals, and now the Administration would use the tariff rules approved by SCOTUS in a more targeted manner to benefit the U.S. consumers and businesses. This would have settled everything down, and businesses would have had more stability for planning. Instead, he acts like a spoiled child, and berating SCOTUS--which I don't like at all. This kind of crap is exactly why they ruled the way they did. Any other tariff imposed will be challenged in court, We'll go around again. Apparently, we have a choice between idiots and Socialists. Woo Hoo!

I answered your question 11 posts ago. The test for any law/regulation should be - Is this the LEAST INTRUSIVE way of handling KNOWN PROBLEM xxx? If the answer is 'No', it's a bad law/regulation. For a Federal Law, the additional question should be - Is this a NATIONAL KNOWN PROBLEM, or is it local?

The latter—as long as that individual’s behavior does no harm to others. It’s called personal liberty of the individual. A rare commodity nowadays. Here’s a little story I’ll just throw out there. There’s 3 bankers with credit cards. A customer comes in asking about credit cards. First banker says, "HI. I'm a Liberal banker. I'll give you a credit card, and take care of everything for you as long as you use it like I tell you." Second banker says, "Hi. I'm a Conservative banker. I'll help you get a credit card with low interest rates, a low credit limit so you don't overextend, and credit counseling to teach you how to responsibly use your new card." The third banker says, "Hi. I'm a libertarian banker. Here's my credit card offerings. Just pick the one that you like best. But remember, you're responsible for all charges." Neither banker in and of themselves are good or bad. Neither card in and of itself is good or bad. Each is a choice based on personal priorities.

@thetragichippy knows. He and I usually agree on quite a bit. I'm surprised he likes the government involvement in rate setting. There's a good example of the differences between a conservative and a libertarian. One wants to control a social behavior based on their own moral values. (Even though it's an admirable desire.) The other doesn't.

So, you think it's win for the government to involve themselves in private business? Is it also a great idea for them to tell restaurants what they can serve, and how much people can eat because folks love the food so much they eat too much and have health issues?

Probably not that much. Similar geographic area. Would depend on labor and flood/natural disaster ratings since y'all are right together more I would think. But, people also forget, your locale's fire protection rating also has a major impact. If your city's insurance is cheaper (the insurance they actually buy for themselves as a municipality) because of the way they have their fire stations located, it would have an effect on your personal insurance. This could also affect your rebuild costs. That's another reason it would be almost impossible to have exactly the same tax rates. Not totally impossible. But very rare, as no two houses are exactly the same. Individual credit ratings are another differentiator if using replacement value as appraised value, since part of your insurance cost to rebuild is based on your credit rating.

I'm lost. If the replacement cost is different, the tax bill would be different. If your land floods, and his doesn't, replacement costs wouldn't be the same. Insurance requirements to rebuild would be different.

You are obviously very unaware of how construction estimating works. The prices are based on local areas as I've mentioned. The only way for the taxes to be the same--other than sheer chance--is if the exact same house was built in the exact same area, using the exact same materials, the exact same labor, and the exact same logistical costs. The scenario I described does occur. Drive up to Lower Greenville area in DFW. All you see now is McMansions filled with yuppies. Every so often, you'll see a nice, older home. But, not too often at all.

I'm not sure you understand my insurance value appraisal stance. In my scenario, the land is moot except for incidental value related to costs of rebuilding (ie. ease of access for reconstruction, utilities, etc.). The property value of the home would be based on rebuild costs that are already used for labor and material costs in any design/engineering/construction area. The estimated costs are area and regional specific. These costs typically include locational differences which would account for your developed vs not question. (You could also set a limit on acreage included with the improvement value on the property, and have anything greater be taxed at unimproved acreage levels in addition. This would address your larger lot concerns.) The numbers used are what engineering/construction firms use when estimating project costs, and are basically industry standard numbers with slight deviations for special circumstances. They are also close to the numbers insurance companies use now for rebuild estimates. AI could make this very simple and efficient. So, relatively little extra expense for the insurance company to set a value, and keep it up-to-date yearly. Instead of a CAD, improved property tax appraisals would be based on the cost of materials and labor to rebuild your structure/home to a replacement scenario at the market conditions based on the previous year's estimate. Unimproved property taxes would still be taxed as they are currently. The way it is now is backwards. My home is almost 40 years old. It's nice, but not fancy. My appraisal is way more than what I can sell it. I've also had relatives in Dallas that were literally taxed and fee'd out of their homes (need a new roof, new paint job, any number of things) because the City wanted the older homes & residents with tax exemptions out. Then, they had developers buy, demolish, and rebuild new to resell where the City could increase it's tax base. As a bonus to this change, you could downsize another government department. Always a plus. 😁

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare. Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.