Has the government ever given anything away? It’s not possible as they are not a nonprofit. Let me explain this in simple terms. While they may print money, spend money, loan money to banks or, in this case, send a check to tax filers, it is all secured with tax “revenue” or future tax revenues collected from either you, your neighbors, your business or your neighbor's business. Money does not grow on trees. If it did, inflation would be infinite and U.S. currency would be worthless. The U.S. government is sending you a check drawn on the future revenues it will collect. Unless you die (a taxable event) before the government sends its personal collection agency (the IRS) to make good on the “loan” it’s sending you, prepare to pay them back with interest.
Where will I get the biggest bang for my buck? To save or to spend—that is the question. Let’s assume you have no credit card debt (because if you did that would be the best spot to put it). Second, you can live like the grasshopper and do what Bush wants you to do and buy American-made products or services. Or you can invest your money in a mutual fund or equity. Or, depending on the interest rate on your mortgage, it may be best just to sink the money there to lower your payments and pay off your loan early. However, it's not easy to get that money back in an emergency. Or you can do what I recommend and simply save that money. There may be rainy days ahead in the near future. I am not saying to put that money under the mattress. Not only is it not secure there and probably not insured, you are losing money as inflation eats into its value. So, at a minimum, put it into a federally insured savings account. I just opened one myself. Prior to today, I was using the savings account at the bank where I do my checking. Little did I know how much more interest I could be getting. Money-Rates.com provides a listing of some of the best rates in the country updated every minute. Now I'm not losing money on my savings. Save or spend; the option is yours. Would you rather be the ant or the grasshopper?
Want to know where your state ranks in the country's best and worst home inspection regulation laws? Host of radio's "The Money Pit," Tom Kraeutler, lists The American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) 2007 state rankings in his blog. Here they are, from best to worst:
1. Louisiana 2. New Jersey 3. Arizona 4. Texas 5. Massachusetts 6. Connecticut/North Carolina 8. Arkansas 9. Indiana 10. Rhode Island/West Virginia 12. South Dakota/Tennessee 14. Mississippi 15. Virginia 16. Wisconsin 17. Oklahoma 18. Kentucky 19. Alaska/Illinois 21. Alabama/Oregon/New York 24. Maryland 25. Nevada 26. Florida 27. Pennsylvania 28. South Carolina 29. Montana 30. North Dakota 31. Georgia 32. California
Wondering why all 50 states aren't on the list? The ones that aren't have NO license requirement.
Want to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare? Secure a permit before doing any work on your home or property. If you don't believe me, just talk to the Glendale, Calif., couple who were recently fined $347,000 for improperly pruning their trees. After they created a web site documenting their side of the story, city officials are now admitting the fine was "excessive." But the family still had to hire a lawyer and are facing a fine in the neighborhood of $10,000. The family made the mistake of taking the tree trimmer's word that they didn't need a permit. If I said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Always check with your local town government before doing any work on your property.
Imagine the surprise of a contractor when he found half a million dollars in rare bills stuffed in a bathroom wall he'd been hired to take down. Now imagine the court fight that ensued when the homeowner offered the contractor a mere 10 percent "finder's fee." That's exactly the situation that is playing out in Ohio between homeowner Amanda Reece and contractor Bob Kitts. Kitts claims Reece originally offered to split the bounty but then backed down and cites an arcane "finders keepers" law to support his argument. The two have been wrangling for 18 months, and the only people winning are the lawyers. "I honestly hope and I believe, that the law and common sense will co-mingle," Reece said.
Confused about how to make your home "green?" Finally, there will be a code to work from when contracting to build an energy-efficient home or remodel an existing home. The U.S. Green Building Council has long had its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)certification program for commercial and public buildings. As of November 8, they will also offer a LEED-H or LEED for Homes code to guide builders and buyers in the quest for the environmentally designed, energy-efficient home. The LEED-H certification has eight categories in which a house is scored, including the building process, siting of the home, materials used, efficiency, indoor air quality, and how well the homeowner is educated on green living. The new program will certify builders so that consumers can find knowledgeable contractors. LEED-H builders can display the certification earned by their homes. Certification runs from silver to gold to platinum, depending on the score the home receives in the eight categories combined. It looks like there will be genuine incentive and tracking measures in place to show that builders and buyers are moving toward greener living.
It was only a matter of time — the "monster home" phenomenon of 2000-2005 has generated its own backlash. And let there be no doubt, the size of American homes has grown tremendously. In 1973, the average home was 1,525 square feet and in 2006 it was 2,248 square feet, a 47% increase in size. Now more and more cities and counties are leveling new restriction on the buildings I've heard called "McMansions" and "starter castles," massively oversized homes that don't fit the neighborhood's character. Strategies for restriction vary — Boulder County in Colorado is considering requiring builders to pay extra for houses larger than 3,000 feet while Atlantic Beach in Florida has restricted homes to half the size of the square lot. The City Council of Salt Lake City took a different tack by limiting the height of new homes to 28 feet. Proponents contend the restrictions preserve open spaces and preserve the neighborhood's character. Critics say it is a restriction on property owners' rights. Either way, I have to admit my eyes bugged out a little when I read the median size of a new home in Boulder County was 6,000 square feet. Zow, that's big.
