What's everyones backup career ?

[BOYCAPTAIN]

Yup, clear as mud.

Seriously, like I thought, you're talking about investors with quite a bit of money to play with. Kudos that you have the relationships to get back into that kind of position.

it's a california thing!

 

[sqwkvfr]

It's actually dealing with commercial properties with high credit tenants, so the value is already determined through a long term (10+ yrs) NNN lease. Dealing with high credit "investment grade" tenants only decreases the likelyhood of them ever defaulting on their lease.
Your value in a 1031 exchange comes from the ability to defer the capital gains tax that would be due if you sold the property outright. Combine that with the ability buy into a fraction of a much larger property as a TIC (up to 35 co-owners). Also, your day-to-day involvement is gone because the tenant takes care of most items (taxes, insurance, maintenance). A management company is usually hired to oversee the rest (mainly lease compliance and billing).
It all adds up to lower risk, no capital gains tax (for now), income growth through rent escalations, and future appreciation in the property.
I've rambled on way to long...sorry. Hope this answered your ???

If you don't mind my asking, do the investors see their portion of the monthly rent payments?

What does it take to buy into something like that?

Would this be good for a retired person looking to unload farmland, avoid capital gains and have an income?

What kind of risk are we looking at and if an investor passes on, what happens to his/her share?

 

[Jmoney]

Capital Gains...

Would you rather pay capital gains of 15% now or 28% under Obama, just to assuage his sense of "fairness?"

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Would you rather pay capital gains of 15% now or 28% under Obama, just to assuage his sense of "fairness?"

For every superficial talking point about the right there is a counter for the left and vice versa.


As an Air Line Pilot do you want to elect someone who will work with you and your career intrests or someone who will work to undermine your efforts to feed your family, pay your mortgage and save for retirement.

Do you want to prosper???!!

 

[Lear70]

As an Air Line Pilot do you want to elect someone who will work with you and your career intrests or someone who will work to undermine your efforts to feed your family, pay your mortgage and save for retirement.

Do you want to prosper???!!

Ummm... OK... again, I'll bite.

Who the hell are you talking about here? Because I know you're not talking about McCain versus Hillary or Obama.

In your question above, you imply that there's a choice, that the two are mutually exclusive, and therein lies the problem.

If you vote for McCain, you more than likely get to keep most of your tax breaks, but you get NO bargaining power, negotiations continue to stagnate for years, and he has NO sympathy for airline pilots or other "middle managers" making more than $80-120k. Yes, I know this first-hand, have talked with him more than once in a trapped environment (Lear flights) back in 2000.

So, you get someone who has NO sympathy for our plight AND, as a result, DOES undermine our efforts to pay our mortgage, feed our family, and save for retirement, as inflation goes up by double digits (when using the old method of computing CPI which included gas and gas-related items) and he gives us NO way to improve our earning power as the cost of living goes up, thereby actually DECREASING our income in terms of spending power.

On the other hand, you get both Obama and Hillary who *MIGHT* be interested in helping us by actually ALLOWING the unions to force end-games as the RLA was designed to do, BUT,,, then you get the repeal of the tax cuts under the Republicans, more taxes to pay for these insane "health care for everyone" plans, and, quite possibly, a relaxed stance on protecting the country from global terror, opening a path for another attack which was DEVASTATING not only to the victims of those attacks, but also to the industry in general.

So, we can negotiate more money with a Democrat in the White House... maybe... then get taxed to death (as if taxes weren't already too high), thereby AGAIN continuing to make it hard for us to pay our mortgage, put food on the table, and save for retirement.

Personally, I don't like any of the available choices. If there was EVER a time for a Ross Perot with a strong military-background V.P. to help with the country's defense, this would be it. He'd win in a landslide with as much as we are disliking the available candidates.

 

[DoubtingThomas]

Not that I don't enjoy political debate, but MY backup plan is this:

To write captions for the photos on www.lolcats.com

They're hiring!

 

[say again]

Ever since I got involved in aviation my sex life has increased dramatically -now I get f*#ked on a daily basis.

 

[Reebo]

Ever since I got involved in aviation my sex life has increased dramatically -now I get f*#ked on a daily basis.

:laugh:

 

[SuperFLUF]

Ummm... OK... again, I'll bite.

Who the hell are you talking about here? Because I know you're not talking about McCain versus Hillary or Obama.

In your question above, you imply that there's a choice, that the two are mutually exclusive, and therein lies the problem.

If you vote for McCain, you more than likely get to keep most of your tax breaks, but you get NO bargaining power, negotiations continue to stagnate for years, and he has NO sympathy for airline pilots or other "middle managers" making more than $80-120k. Yes, I know this first-hand, have talked with him more than once in a trapped environment (Lear flights) back in 2000.

So, you get someone who has NO sympathy for our plight AND, as a result, DOES undermine our efforts to pay our mortgage, feed our family, and save for retirement, as inflation goes up by double digits (when using the old method of computing CPI which included gas and gas-related items) and he gives us NO way to improve our earning power as the cost of living goes up, thereby actually DECREASING our income in terms of spending power.

On the other hand, you get both Obama and Hillary who *MIGHT* be interested in helping us by actually ALLOWING the unions to force end-games as the RLA was designed to do, BUT,,, then you get the repeal of the tax cuts under the Republicans, more taxes to pay for these insane "health care for everyone" plans, and, quite possibly, a relaxed stance on protecting the country from global terror, opening a path for another attack which was DEVASTATING not only to the victims of those attacks, but also to the industry in general.

So, we can negotiate more money with a Democrat in the White House... maybe... then get taxed to death (as if taxes weren't already too high), thereby AGAIN continuing to make it hard for us to pay our mortgage, put food on the table, and save for retirement.

Personally, I don't like any of the available choices. If there was EVER a time for a Ross Perot with a strong military-background V.P. to help with the country's defense, this would be it. He'd win in a landslide with as much as we are disliking the available candidates.

That about sums it up.

Nice try Lear; however, I'm sure you know common sense does not prevail when discussing why pilots don't "need" to vote for democrats.

As far as a serious reply to the topic of the thread; My backup for loss of medical is LTD insurance and my dispatcher certificate.
My "airline industry in the tank" backup is a flexible lifestyle attitude. I'll find the highest paying job I can that doesn't suck. If we have to downsize our modest home and unload diposable expenses then so be it. I don't see how spending cash from my emergency fund to get a degree or specialized training for a "hot" job now that may not be hot in the future when I need it is the best use of my emergency fund.
I'm at about 40% on the list at a carrier that for now is outperforming the majority of the industry (no future guarantee, I know) so for me, I think my resources are best used by adding to the emergency fund.

 

[jetjock6]

Playing piano in a whore house.