Buying land here for now, out of state later or out of state now?

[Idaho44]

You might want to look at some Google maps before you plunk down money on Idaho land. We are pretty overrun with out of staters seeking paradise. And despite what you may have been lead to believe portrayed by the realtor, developers and political marketeers it is not the conservative state it used to be. There is a reason why it is now referred to as Caliho. Lots of hipsters etc. come here to 'escape'. So they may not welcome you!
Oh and we are now a hot spot for exploding case numbers, funny that it started when the tourons showed up! Idaho is now noted for the escalating taxes, land prices, food cost and lack of jobs. Don't believe the propagandists!

 

[Idaho44]

Idaho, been here and still here. The monumental change to Idaho has been dramatic and is kept quiet by those desirous to sell questionable geography to the uneducated masses. The 'blue' disease started in the Wood River Valley (Ketchum, Sun Valley, Hailey, Bellvue) and has infected Boise (always the dominate force), Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Coeur d'Alene, McCall and yes, even Salmon. Other states may be growing but like a balloon, when the masses emigrate to them, their population of escapees move elsewhere to some perceived fantasy land like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming etc. The "River of No Return" is no longer and Lewis and Clark only exist in the imagination. If you move to Idaho be prepared for lots of company (BLM, woke, homeless etc.), bring lots of money, you will need it since the arable land has been replaced with sub divisions and the game is gone. Oh and don't think there is an abundance of jobs unless you can afford to work for minimum wage (definitely not a livable wage)!

 

[Idaho44]

And last but not least here is some reading on the current state of affairs:

Ada County Prosecutor's Office cancels meeting with Black Lives Matter Boise

The Ada County Prosecutor's Office says it has canceled a meeting with organizers from Black Lives Matter Boise. Prosecutors say the planned Friday meeting with the group was halted after an apparent story post on the group's Instagram account. The photo shows vandalism at the Salt Lake County...

idahonews.com

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I am considering buying 5-10 acres for about 100K a few hours south of Seattle as a camping/BOL. I looked at Eastern WA but there are few trees on the acreage there (Ephrata) and thus little resources. So I'm looking at Roy area instead.

Alternatively I could buy 40+ acres in Idaho. I had been traveling to Tampa and Vegas for potential relocation but with the political climate, I'm seriously considering Idaho for an off grid lifestyle (I've raised chickens, rabbits, gardened, etc. and generally experimented with off grid power, water, etc.)

I have a few rental properties here so moving is even more complicated for me than most as I have to either sell and repurchase or hire management on the cheap. As such I'm here for a while longer, likely at least 2 more years, possibly 7. I'm itching to buy land but buying it here seems to make little sense other than if I end up staying here for 5+ years longer. While I've worked remote for a few years, most tech management jobs require an office presence and the rural part of Idaho isn't going to have much in the way of employment local to it. Hence why I was originally targeting Vegas and Tampa which have good markets.

I'd buy in Idaho right away but I can't go there every month. I mean I COULD, but would be unlikely to. I could buy raw land there and just leave it for now until I'm ready to move and start building a cabin, buying one of those Alaka style canvas tents with stove to live in (several people I've heard of have lived in those for years while building in Alaska...)

As much as I prefer the weather and lifestyle of Vegas and Tampa, the women, etc. I fear politically they are turning leftist, with Nevada already being blue...

So buy here now, buy in Idaho now or wait?

Wow u like Vegas? That place seemed like the most phony and superficial place I've ever been but to each his own. I would go for the place where u like the poeple and community the best.

Also I would advise that you get rid of the rentals before u move. Long range management of rentals can be an incredibly huge pain because u are 100% dependent on the rental management company to do a good job. One bad group of renters and ur life is miserable. The exception might be if u have had the same renters for 10 years and u are charging below market rent (ie difficult for them to find another place due to cost). My 2 cents but I've done the long range rental thing.

Ephrata is fine imo if u like the desert and lack of people. Many rural eastern wa and eastern or areas are similar in terms of community and politics but some have a very unique character that you have to accept if u live there so best to spend some time in the specific community u are interested in to get a feel for the locals. Go to the coffee places (not just in town but also where the local farmers go too) in the early morning, that will tell u a lot.

 

[Bushman]

Some of you folks mentioned property taxes as one of the deciding factors...

My grandfather is 98. He bought a small farm house in 1950, in Helvetia (Hillsboro) in Washington Co. The first year he was there, his property taxes were $29/yr. In 2019 his property taxes were over $2900/yr.

For those of you young enough for the math to apply, take your current property taxes and add TWO zeros to the end of it to get an idea of what you'll be paying in 70 years...if you're currently at $3,000/yr., that'd jump to $300,000/yr.

If you say it can't happen or would never happen, I can introduce you to a pissed off old guy in Helvetia who'll disagree with you.

1) There is inflation so the value of the dollar is LESS over time 2) the property value has gone up.

1% of a 50K lot is $500. 1% of a 500K lot is $5,000. When you factor in inflation, the time value of money and property values, it makes more sense.
If you take $500 in 1950 and calculate it to today, it's $5,304 adjusted for inflation...

 

[Bushman]

I think Nevada is out of the running for me now. It's too close to Cali, turned blue, it's desert so very crappy for prepping, nothing nearby for hours driving, and the gun laws are quickly turning sour. They banned private transfers for example. It's the same progression as the leftist states...

I'm actually debating just buying an RV and truck and traveling the country to explore a few states actually LIVING there rather than just visiting to see how I like them longer term.

 

[HaveGun]

Idaho, been here and still here. The monumental change to Idaho has been dramatic and is kept quiet by those desirous to sell questionable geography to the uneducated masses. The 'blue' disease started in the Wood River Valley (Ketchum, Sun Valley, Hailey, Bellvue) and has infected Boise (always the dominate force), Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Coeur d'Alene, McCall and yes, even Salmon. Other states may be growing but like a balloon, when the masses emigrate to them, their population of escapees move elsewhere to some perceived fantasy land like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming etc. The "River of No Return" is no longer and Lewis and Clark only exist in the imagination. If you move to Idaho be prepared for lots of company (BLM, woke, homeless etc.), bring lots of money, you will need it since the arable land has been replaced with sub divisions and the game is gone. Oh and don't think there is an abundance of jobs unless you can afford to work for minimum wage (definitely not a livable wage)!

I grew up in Moscow, which was a quiet and conservative little college town in the 70's and 80's. Then, as the higher education system got more radical and more and more Californians moved to the area, Moscow is now a liberal stronghold and it breaks my heart.

 

[HaveGun]

And I've noticed over the years that quite a few of the California transplants will leave the following spring when we get a rather harsh winter.

Last winter was incredibly mild; the mildest I've ever seen, unfortunately, so I suspect we will have quite a few sticking around for another year.

My cousin moved to the Bay area decades ago and got infected by leftism and moved back here last summer with his super-liberal wife and young kids. They moved into his parents house way out in the country. They are having a tough time adjusting. Even with the super mild winter and being 20 miles from one of the most liberal areas of Idaho, they found still too much freedom and common sense for their liking.

Their kids couldn't hack in the local school district because they were so far behind educationally. It was shocking how ignorant of basic reading and math skills the kids were. They had to be driven to a liberal charter school in Moscow in order to not have their feelings hurt.

Pretty sure they are moving back to California soon. If we have a normal winter, then it will seal the deal. Good riddance.

 

[ma96782]

PROBLEMS OF THE RICH.

Aloha, Mark

 

[No_Regerts]

Make sure you have a contingency built into your purchase for a perc test. The land in the Roy/McKenna/Yelm area can be very wet. As in, cattails will grow in your front yard and your crawl space may need a pump during parts of the year. That's the worst case scenario besides being told your land is wetland and you can't build anything at all.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

It is NOT a one time exemption. You don't really seem to know much about this or like kind exchanges. You can use the primary residence exemption every 2 years...so that's why you've seen it used several times by home owners despite your claim that it is "ostensibly a one-time exemption" which is false.

But besides this and the information you gave for like kind exchanges, you really seem to not fully understand the actual laws or facts around these matters.

Look up the meaning of the word "ostensibly" before you cast aspirations on my intellect. The law was created to protect seniors from taxes when they were leaving their last owned residence. The gains would ostensibly be used to pay for longterm care, etc.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

Look up the meaning of the word "ostensibly" before you cast aspirations on my intellect. The law was created to protect seniors from taxes when they were leaving their last owned residence. The gains would ostensibly be used to pay for longterm care, etc.

What Is the Over-55 Home Sale Exemption?
The over-55 home sale exemption was a tax law that provided homeowners over the age of 55 with a one-time capital gains exclusion. Individuals who met the requirements could exclude up to $125,000 of capital gains on the sale of their personal residences.


This exclusion was intended to stimulate the real estate market and reward homeowners for the purchase and subsequent sale of their homes. The over-55 home sale exemption has not been in effect since 1997. It was replaced by other exclusions for everyone, regardless of age, who profit from selling their principal residences.

 

[Bushman]

Look up the meaning of the word "ostensibly" before you cast aspirations on my intellect. The law was created to protect seniors from taxes when they were leaving their last owned residence. The gains would ostensibly be used to pay for longterm care, etc.

The law wasn't created for long term care, it applies to everyone, regardless of age....

Ostensibly: meaning apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Let's evaluate that in the context of what you said in the post in question, notably the BOLDED section...

[/QUOTE]

The federal limitation for avoidance of Capital Gains Tax on a primary home is $250,000 if you are single or $500,000 if you are married. This amount may be used to cover two homes if you have lived for at least two years out of the last five, in one or both of them. It is ostensibly a one-time exemption, but in practical terms, I have seen it used several times by homeowners.

The way you state it makes it look like you don't know much about the law, as you use the term ostensibly citing it's a one time exemption BUT you've seen people use it more than once. Ostensibly meaning it is purportedly or allegedly a one time exemption, but you've seen people use it more than once....

Like I said, it is not allegedly or purportedly or ostensibly a one time exemption, that some people magically used more than once. As I explained section 121 states that you can use the exemption every 2 years on a primary residence....go look it up. I have no idea where you dreamed up the idea that it's a one time exclusion. It is not.

On top of that, it has nothing to do with "two homes", you can use it every two years for a primary residence. The 2/5 year rule applies to rental periods, qualified and non qualified use, and there is depreciation recapture if you use section 121. Past 5 years the gains are pro rated based on periods of qualified and non qualified use.

When exchanging properties under a 1031 or a 1033 exchange, they must be "like" properties. A house for a house, apartment for an apartment, etc. Talk to an expert (usually for free because they would like to be the neutral "holder" until the transaction is completed.

Again this is wrong. It has to be like kind, but that doesn't mean it has to be a house for a house, or an apartment for an apartment. You've CLEARLY never done one. I have....3 of them As I stated before you can trade a house for an apartment complex (good luck with that though) or a condo for a strip mall. You can even trade it for raw land as long as the intent is for investment purposes....https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0110/10-things-to-know-about-1031-exchanges.aspx

Furthermore, as I explained earlier, it's not that they want to be a neutral holder until the transaction is completed. The expert is an ATTORNEY, they are not FREE, they are legally called a QUALIFIED INTERMEDIARY for this transation. They are REQUIRED BY LAW to hold the funds it's not that they'd LIKE TO, and as I also explained, you have 45 days to get a property identified and under contract, and 180 days to close...the requirements for a 1031 exchange....to which you replied...

Do 1031 or 1033 tax exchanges.

Except if you knew anything about 1031 exchanges other than what you heard in passing, or tax law in general, you would have known I was already talking about a 1031 exchange when I said the 45/180 day timelines. Anyone who has done one or knows even a little bit about them knows those two timelines, because they are ridiculous timelines. It's tough to get a property under contract as a rental that will work in 45 days in this market. It's too short. Yet they give you 6 months to close, when the average closing takes only 4-6 weeks....

But you really don't know anything about the subject at all, as literally EVERYTHING you have stated, from the "would like to be a neutral holder" to the "has to be an apartment for an apartment" to the one time exemption for primary residence has been wrong....and then you tried to hide behind the meaning of the word ostensibly, which if you actually knew what it meant, means exactly what your post sounded like: it's allegedly or purportedly a one time exemption, but you've seen some use it more than once. Seriously, stop giving bad tax advice when you have ZERO credentials or experience in this.

Do 1031 or 1033 tax exchanges.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

The law wasn't created for long term care, it applies to everyone, regardless of age....

Ostensibly: meaning apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Let's evaluate that in the context of what you said in the post in question, notably the BOLDED section...

The way you state it makes it look like you don't know much about the law, as you use the term ostensibly citing it's a one time exemption BUT you've seen people use it more than once. Ostensibly meaning it is purportedly or allegedly a one time exemption, but you've seen people use it more than once....

Like I said, it is not allegedly or purportedly or ostensibly a one time exemption, that some people magically used more than once. As I explained section 121 states that you can use the exemption every 2 years on a primary residence....go look it up. I have no idea where you dreamed up the idea that it's a one time exclusion. It is not.

On top of that, it has nothing to do with "two homes", you can use it every two years for a primary residence. The 2/5 year rule applies to rental periods, qualified and non qualified use, and there is depreciation recapture if you use section 121. Past 5 years the gains are pro rated based on periods of qualified and non qualified use.




Again this is wrong. It has to be like kind, but that doesn't mean it has to be a house for a house, or an apartment for an apartment. You've CLEARLY never done one. I have....3 of them As I stated before you can trade a house for an apartment complex (good luck with that though) or a condo for a strip mall. You can even trade it for raw land as long as the intent is for investment purposes....https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0110/10-things-to-know-about-1031-exchanges.aspx

Furthermore, as I explained earlier, it's not that they want to be a neutral holder until the transaction is completed. The expert is an ATTORNEY, they are not FREE, they are legally called a QUALIFIED INTERMEDIARY for this transation. They are REQUIRED BY LAW to hold the funds it's not that they'd LIKE TO, and as I also explained, you have 45 days to get a property identified and under contract, and 180 days to close...the requirements for a 1031 exchange....to which you replied...





Except if you knew anything about 1031 exchanges other than what you heard in passing, or tax law in general, you would have known I was already talking about a 1031 exchange when I said the 45/180 day timelines. Anyone who has done one or knows even a little bit about them knows those two timelines, because they are ridiculous timelines. It's tough to get a property under contract as a rental that will work in 45 days in this market. It's too short. Yet they give you 6 months to close, when the average closing takes only 4-6 weeks....

But you really don't know anything about the subject at all, as literally EVERYTHING you have stated, from the "would like to be a neutral holder" to the "has to be an apartment for an apartment" to the one time exemption for primary residence has been wrong....and then you tried to hide behind the meaning of the word ostensibly, which if you actually knew what it meant, means exactly what your post sounded like: it's allegedly or purportedly a one time exemption, but you've seen some use it more than once. Seriously, stop giving bad tax advice when you have ZERO credentials or experience in this.
[/QUOTE]
Blah, Blah, Blah.