Monday, July 4, 2011

images %IMG_DESC_8% . %IMG_DESC_1%
  • %IMG_DESC_1%


  • ShantiRam
    07-11 09:12 PM
    My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?

    Anyone - united nations - please advice.




    wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1% . %IMG_DESC_2%
  • %IMG_DESC_2%


  • qualified_trash
    05-17 12:32 PM
    gc03:

    Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.

    This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.

    I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.

    So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
    I hope you will understand. Thanks.
    Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.

    The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.




    . %IMG_DESC_3%
  • %IMG_DESC_3%


  • krishna
    02-21 12:45 PM
    Lou dobbs, Pat Buchanan and people of that kind are full of vanity. It is wise to tune out such guys and make sure that they do not affect policy decisions in congress. I dont think policy makers care for his rant on TV.




    2011 %IMG_DESC_2% . %IMG_DESC_4%
  • %IMG_DESC_4%


  • Macaca
    12-21 10:00 AM
    Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007

    WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.

    What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.

    Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.

    �What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�

    Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.

    Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.

    �I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.

    As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.

    �A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.

    Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.

    As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.

    Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.

    �Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�

    As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.

    But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.

    The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.

    Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.

    On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�

    The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.

    Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.

    As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.

    �The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.

    Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.

    Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.

    �I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�

    Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.

    And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_5%
  • %IMG_DESC_5%


  • skd
    12-31 12:32 PM
    Only for Hindi speaking people...This Quote from Ramdhari Dinkar's Poem
    ...
    Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko
    Jiske paas garal hai
    Uska kya jo dantheen
    Vishrahit vineet saral hai
    ....

    Which means.....Pardon(forgiveness) looks nice if you are Strong and forgiving a weak...It will funny if a weak person says that he is forgiving a strong opponent.

    For reading whole poem goto this link (top is in English script /and Translation in English and scroll down to read it in Hindi)
    http://poems2remember.blogspot.com/2007/01/shakti-aur-kshama-strength-and-mercy.html




    . %IMG_DESC_6%
  • %IMG_DESC_6%


  • prioritydate
    01-10 10:24 PM
    First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.

    Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html

    I didn't relate anything, you tried to relate and I supported that. If some hardcore terrorist gathers his family members and try to hide in some house, then I would support bombing that house, so we can get rid of that terrorist. If Bin Laden gathers 20 children and hides in cave, I would say go and drop a nuke on the cave! I don't care...



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_7%
  • %IMG_DESC_7%


  • ganguteli
    03-24 02:32 PM
    Unitednations,
    I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.

    - Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?

    - If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.

    - Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?

    - If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?

    - Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?

    - Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.

    - Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.

    The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .




    2010 %IMG_DESC_3% . %IMG_DESC_8%
  • %IMG_DESC_8%


  • Macaca
    03-04 07:32 PM
    Resources

    American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF (http://www.ailf.org))
    World Policy Institute (WPI (http://www.worldpolicy.org/))
    National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP (http://www.nfap.net/))
    Economic Policy Institute (EPI (http://www.sharedprosperity.org/topics-immigration.html))



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_9%
  • %IMG_DESC_9%


  • HawaldarNaik
    12-29 12:19 AM
    Well comparing India to Israel is not going to be justified at this time cause Israel has had a offensive stance right from its inception whereas India has always been reactive, and in the long run, i beleive that has paid off.

    However at this point we have to make sure our neighbours take corrective action though to be frank, i am not sure they are capable or have the potency of bringing about the changes cause at the ground level all those dangerous elements (some who have gone and taken refuge from India), enjoy not just support from the intelligence and the army but also from some locals and roam around freely

    So in short it is a rogue country, frankly even the super powers are not in control of the situation there ........as some factions are loyal to the superpowers, some to the dangerous elements and some to regional powers, and each one of them is being used by these powers to carry out attacks to various countries around the world...and implment their respective agendas which are contrary to one another.....

    What is the strategy for India

    In the short term i would say 'Our Sardar' (chieftain...i firmly think this time 'The Sardar' is leading from the front...and not being remote controlled by the lady ) is doing the right thing, he is garnering global support (he first tried the super powers and now is in touch with the regional powers also, and has got PC a highly efficient resource to strengthen internal security), at the same time watching the response from our neighbour, who are talking of war but are trying and i am saying trying to bring about some positive change (how much of that is possible i am pretty pessimestic due to reasons specified above...no single control or point of contact).
    In the long term there has to be a solution to the neighbouring country problem either they revamp and reform (after 60 years of being the bad guys...hit men.... for various powers world over), or look at the possiblity of breaking down the wall cause then we can try and clear up the mess......




    hair %IMG_DESC_4% . %IMG_DESC_10%
  • %IMG_DESC_10%


  • Michael chertoff
    12-19 11:15 AM
    Moderator/Admin/Pappoo,

    Please delete this thread. It is not helping in anyways to our immigration goals.

    Calm down friends.

    MC



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_11%
  • %IMG_DESC_11%


  • dpp
    05-16 12:07 PM
    No need to have Durbin's bill. Just ban Outsourcing, then all jobs will come back and everybody will be happy here in US.


    My view is not based on my personal gain or loss. My view is even if they ban consulting H1b numbers will not be reduced so much and cap will be reached. Number of permanent jobs will increase and they will hire H1b only when there is real shortage. Why do you think IEEE-USA members are undeserving and lazy just because they are interesting to put restrictions in H1b? Infact they are interested in more green cards. We are appreciating. Just because they are pointing out some problems in the program we cannot brand them as anti immigrants or lazy people. We ourself know that there are some issues in the program. While we were studying in the college it was big achivement if our research article comes into IEEE. So IEEE is considered as one of world best academic association.

    It is not TCS,Infy,Wipro is causing delay to GC. Infact I worked one of those companies and still they are one of best in India. Still I may work those companies if I go to India.

    If there is real shortage of skilled people then we will pass all the tests which are given in Durbin proposal and we can get H1b. What is the problem in accepting? Infact I am not supporting Ban of H1b on consulting but other than that everything can be fine and easily passed by most of H1b persons




    hot %IMG_DESC_5% . %IMG_DESC_12%
  • %IMG_DESC_12%


  • eb3India
    04-07 05:08 PM
    In late 1970's US had great demand for Doctors many Indian and Pakistan doctors migrated to US on green card, however after few years as demand went down, immigration for doctors also become very tough, infact complete system for foriegn doctors was made very restrictive.

    I see similar thing happening to IT but the catch here is Internet, virtually we can work from anywhere, but our senators who think internet is like series of tube does'nt get this



    more...

    house %IMG_DESC_17% . %IMG_DESC_13%
  • %IMG_DESC_13%


  • NKR
    03-28 08:06 PM
    Job is never guaranteed ..so watch out !! I agree it is highly personal - so if you can and have purchased it --good for you. I was giving my opinion and also to educate about the myth that home is a great investment ..it is not ..it is just a place to live..and so is an apartment..I guess both have advantages and disadvantages ..
    to answer yr question on top ...do you mean to say kids won't grow up in an apartment ?? I feel at v.young age they find more friends in apartments.
    or do u mean to say young kids ( 2 - 6) years lead inferior lives in apartments ?? I big NO ..by renting I come home early and spend more time with kids and they love that ..now if you are able to buy house near your work then that is good for you ...but where I stay (and for many) they cannot do that because of the bubble !!
    to answer yr other post ..actually you should have framed it this way ...would I buy an house if I get green card (SINCE I BELIEVE I WILL GET GC BEFORE PRICES GO UP ..i.e. with in next 2 years). my answer ..
    if I get GC ..yes ...irrespective of price going up or not ..within a period of 6 months after getting GC, I would buy house ..credit is good and have downpayment.
    on EAD and I need more space ...(I would need extra space only when my son grows up and he needs his own space and room)..before this happens I believe I would get a GC ..if I don't get GC then I would try to rent a home.
    EAD and don't need 2000 sq feet (i.e. sons are still small) ..then I would continue to rent (and watch the falling prices !! and perhabs thank USCIS just for this i.e. preventing me from buying a house at inflated prices !!).

    You keep mixing up things, You are both for/against in your own post. On one hand you say that apartment is good for kids since they find other kids to play with, on the other hand you say that if you get a GC, you will buy a house within six months. So what exactly are you trying to tell. If the market is good, is buying a house good thing or bad thing.

    Home might not be a great investment, after a couple of years it becomes a necessity. Living in a house is not a great thing, nor living in an apartment is less pleasant. Like I have said it all depends on one�s situation and what one wants. A person and his/her family including kids should be happy wherever they are, it�s all that matters.




    tattoo %IMG_DESC_6% . %IMG_DESC_14%
  • %IMG_DESC_14%


  • ssa
    07-14 02:13 PM
    About same time last year we had different "schism" on these forums: July 2007 filers with approved labor who could file their 485s Vs those with older PDs but unfortunately stuck in BECs. Most of Eb3s who are outraged today are July 2007 filers. Any guesses how many of them requested BEC victims back then "to be happy" for others and not rock the boat?

    The unfortunate fact is that although everyone here is convinced of their moral high ground it is nothing more than self-preservation at the end. If it was just that it would still be fine (human nature) but still more unfortunate is the fact that we as a group never get this riled up - except few notable and respected exceptions - as long as everyone is equally miserable. Only if we had so much participation in all action items (admin fixes, house bills, funding drive etc.)...



    more...

    pictures %IMG_DESC_7% . %IMG_DESC_15%
  • %IMG_DESC_15%


  • gcisadawg
    12-27 01:02 AM
    So, if ISI is behind Bombay, I struggle to understand what it would gain from provoking India.

    The 'machinery''s motives I can understand. They are being pursued by Pakistan army and NATO forces, and by provoking India and starting a conflict on the eastern border, they would divert Pakistan army and get some relief. Plus, the more chaos in Pakistan, the better it is for them.

    Look at this way...

    Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.

    The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.

    Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
    Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.

    As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.

    The Key questions are
    a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)

    It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..

    With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.

    When a war breaks out,

    Tension on the Western border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
    It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'

    A weak central govt in India with a totally angry Indian population wanting 'something' need to be done to stop this.
    A fuse that can easily go off...A baloon that can easily burst..My point is India can be very easily provoked at this stage.

    US took revenge in Afghanistan for 09/11. It initiated a war of choice in Iraq. It allowed Israel to pummel Lebanon while preaching 'war on terror'. US can not prevent India from doing a war if needed.

    Dude, we have seen Mumbai, we have seen parliament attack, we have seen Ashkardam all in broad day light in addition
    to many hit and run operations. How many more the world want us to tolerate? Buddha and Gandhi may have born in india but does the world expect us to tolerate attacks after attacks after attacks?

    I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
    from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...

    Peace,
    G




    dresses %IMG_DESC_12% . %IMG_DESC_16%
  • %IMG_DESC_16%


  • Macaca
    03-04 07:32 PM
    Resources

    American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF (http://www.ailf.org))
    World Policy Institute (WPI (http://www.worldpolicy.org/))
    National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP (http://www.nfap.net/))
    Economic Policy Institute (EPI (http://www.sharedprosperity.org/topics-immigration.html))



    more...

    makeup %IMG_DESC_9% . %IMG_DESC_17%
  • %IMG_DESC_17%


  • dealsnet
    01-08 03:05 PM
    You think about using brain by them?? You kidding???
    Blind following the blind.

    What did they invent in this world.?
    May be using kids as suicide bombers.
    You may remember first attempt for Benezer's life by giving a 3 month old child covered with bombs, and it explode before she touched the child??


    All the religeous books were written based on contemporary circumstances. I have a friend named Mansuri, mentioned to me once why muslims don't eat turtles:

    "Few animals with hard shell were not hygenic or dangerous like crocodile. It was difficult to explain each animal separately to common people. So Mohammad advised that animals with hard shell should not be eaten. "

    Another one told by my friend Maqsood:

    "There were lots of cabella wars going on at the time of Mohammad. The prophet allowed to have more than one wives so that those ladies don't go on wrong route like prostitution. "


    Above examples seem acceptable over that time. At today they are not relevant anymore. Some people still want to follow the same words spoken 1300 years before literally without applying a slightest brain. They are abused and misguided by some selfish Mullahs who have their own agenda in life.

    Rather than abusing entire community, need to educate "spoiled kids" how they are misguided in current time. Unfortunately percentage of "spoiled kids" are very high as I mentioned in one of posts before.




    girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14% . %IMG_DESC_18%
  • %IMG_DESC_18%


  • alisa
    04-07 12:32 PM
    Why don't we let CompeteAmerica and Bill Gates and the geniuses in congress/senate figure out what the adequate number or H-1s should be. We don't care if the H1 numbers go up, or down, if I am not mistaken.

    We should only oppose increased hardships/obstacles in the form of LCA/administrative hurdles for H-1 renewals. Something that will only enrich the lawyers more, and increase the workload for USCIS.

    Whether there should be 65K H1s, or 115K, or zero. That should not be our concern.



    One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.




    hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11% . %IMG_DESC_19%
  • %IMG_DESC_19%


  • alien2006
    07-14 03:03 PM
    I wouldn't use the word slave so calously. We on H1s are not slaves, we have some restrictions but we are not slaves. I think you need to see some good documentary or better yet read books on slavery.




    Gravitation
    03-25 03:59 PM
    Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?


    Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.

    Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.

    Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.

    Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.

    Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.




    hiralal
    06-07 09:50 PM
    I definitely agree with the post above :). ..here is another article ..not the best bit vague but still good ..it came in just now on cnbc
    note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346

    --------------------
    Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.

    AP

    Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.

    Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.

    But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.

    There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.

    Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?

    Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.

    Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.

    Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.

    In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.

    This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.

    Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.

    On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.

    As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.

    All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.

    For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.

    But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.

    Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment