arrow74

joined 1 month ago
[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.

Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That's the insanity of the current market.

Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.

What would you suggest?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

A lot of kids move back after college. I definitely wouldn't downsize until my family was secure and for sure no longer needed the space.

Now the question is it better to allow that space sit vacant or rent out the space.

I think there is a defensible position for renting out a temporarily unused space in your primary home versus buying vacant properties solely to rent.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I'd only downsize once they are well established. It's about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.

Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.

I'm not saying it's just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

Exactly, I'd argue kids are the most likely to go to lengths to circumvent the rules

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago

Forget tax havens, eventually some countries will probably become content havens and sell server space hosted there. Probably some carribean island

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.

There needs to be actual evidence greater than "ex girlfriend said so" for a court to grant the request.

Ironically by the numbers Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law. Granting a total of 2,355 in 2020. California on the other hand has issued only 984. These are the 3rd and 1st most populous states respectively.

Given how many people go through breakups each year and how many people are insanely petty, seems like it's not just based on a disgruntled ex's word.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 19 points 5 days ago

My understanding is there is not a single state with red flag laws that allow all weapons to be seized based on one person's word. Well other than a doctor giving a professional diagnosis.

For everyone else you have to have some evidence. Either multiple people witnessing threats/harassment video, or text based evidence.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yeah stealing from random people to "survive" is not okay.

This isn't stealing food from a store this is taking money from everyday people's trying to rent an apartment