As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: property


Passive income is the Holy Grail of financial independence. Although modern Western society and capitalism relies on the Puritan work ethic, the idea that labor is a value to society and hard work is the path to a spiritual and successful life, most people would prefer not to trade their time and effort for an opportunity to survive financially.

There are good reasons. The work ethic is designed to benefit employers, not employees. Even though the labor movement worked hard to ensure humane conditions for employees, in the business world, the idea of spending countless hours at the office is rewarded in some working environments. Employees are made to feel guilty about desiring work/life balance, as excellence in an organization is a goal that requires a measure of imbalance. Unwavering dedication to the job above all other priorities is rewarded.

MoneyThis approach might make sense if a job is also a passion, but for the vast majority of people, passions exist outside the office. Families, hobbies, and personal missions all have higher importance on the scale of values, but they often don’t have the ability to provide the financial incentive necessary to make life easier for families, hobbies, and personal missions. When eight or more hours of the day are lacking passion, the results are the tired memes of the ordinary workplace:

  • Is it Friday yet?
  • I can’t wait to get out of here.
  • She’s retiring this year; she’s lucky.
  • My coworkers are so annoying.
  • The boss expects too much and then raises the bar when I exceed expectations.
  • I can’t get anywhere in this job.

The list goes on.

It’s no wonder at all people view the idea of passive income as salvation. Rather than trading in effort and time for a paycheck, your assets generate income while you sit back and relax, spend time with your family, and pursue your less lucrative passions.

Passive income exists, at least from a tax standpoint. Income from a rental property or from a partnership where you aren’t actively involved is considered passive income. The IRS treats this type of passive income differently than other income, even if that income comes in the form of dividends from an investment portfolio, what some might also call “passive income.” The truth is that all income requires active involvement, but perhaps it’s a matter of degree.

The IRS considers income from real estate investments passive income, but managing real estate can be a full-time job. Don’t expect to sit back and your investments to thrive, even if you have a management company handling the day-to-day work. In fact, unless you’re able to amass a significant volume of real estate, or if you do most of the work yourself, it’s unlikely the time and effort you spend will be as profitable as you expect.

Expect the same disappointment if you’re looking to dividend income as your path to wealth. If you calculate that you would like to replace $50,000 of your toil-based income, you would need to have $1 million invested in investments paying a 5 percent dividend. (I’m ignoring the difference in income tax just to keep the example simple.) $1 million is a large bank balance, but it is achievable. You can’t, however, just put $1 million in an investment paying a 5 percent dividend and forget about it.

Any investment requires active involvement, starting from the beginning. You need to choose the right investments to start, and you need to monitor your investments over time. Sure, you’re not toiling in the field or wiping sweat off your brow at a construction site, but you are spending time researching your investments. You also need to pay attention to ensure your investments continue to perform. Companies decide to cancel their dividends without so much of a warning, so you should follow the company’s financials to be aware of any signs of trouble before the executives decide to reinvest profits, if any, rather than continue the distribution to shareholders.

When it comes to letting your money earn your income, nothing beats bonds. Suze Orman and financial planners offer advice to the general public, extolling the virtues of investing in a portfolio made almost entirely of stocks, but if you look at Suze’s own portfolio, which is designed not to increase value over time in exchange for risk but to generate income year after year, she invests primarily in bonds. (Her investment was in bonds as of a few years ago according to her own admission in a news story. I don’t know whether this is still the case, but it’s likely.)

Taking a step back, while Suze — and many other investors, but she is a good example — invests her portfolio for passive income, she’s not sitting back and relaxing with her life. While she may have money managers who handle her investments for her, she still trades her time and effort for an income.

Are you seeking the Holy Grail of passive income?

Photo: Raido Kaldma
Wealthy Turtle

{ 10 comments }

Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West have been working hard to bring the issue of poverty into the consciousness of the citizens and political discourse of the United States. As a team, Smiley and West have been touring city to city, speaking to audiences concerned about the increasing wealth gap in this country. Their book, The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifeseto, is the culmination of their observations of American citizens throughout these travels.

While the economy is technically in recovery from the Great Recession, a vast slice of Americans have not experienced a real recovery. A “jobless recovery,” where the beneficiaries of an improving economy are the wealthy while the middle class struggles with unemployment, is not a real recovery. Despite this disadvantage, the prevalence and pervasiveness of poverty is still astonishing. According to Smiley and West, 150 million people in this country are in or near poverty. That number represents one out of every two individuals — half the country.

Tavis SmileyThe issue of poverty, affecting this number of individuals, is bigger than poverty itself. The government tallies 46 million Americans living in poverty according to the 2010 census and the government’s own definitions of poverty. Many more individuals are affected by poverty because they are living dangerously close. Many middle class households, particularly those already living in debt or in a paycheck-to-paycheck situation, are one lost paycheck away from a dangerous financial situation, and many families are already experiencing a personal decline due to the inability to find gainful employment.

Poverty has traditionally been a problem classified as urban or rural. Minorities have been and are disproportionately affected by poverty, but poverty is not a suburban problem, too. With white, middle-class families now facing the issue of poverty, whether by losing a job or being dangerously close to not being able to afford their homes, the issue is gaining more attention. While poverty is making life difficult for an increasing number of Americans, those in or seeking office, whether Democrats or Republicans, are not concerned. In order to receive a voice in political discourse, you need money. While the United States may have been founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, these have generally only been granted to an elite selection of its inhabitants. The distribution of social power is expanded only by revolution among the disenfranchised.

Smiley and West contacted Consumerism Commentary with an interest in speaking to me about these issues — to defend their position, and to open my eyes to the realities faced even by the middle class in this country, many of whom are the “new poor.” We arranged an interview for the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, airing Sunday, May 13. Unfortunately, Dr. West was unable to participate in the interview at the last minutes as he was in New York waiting for a verdict after a conviction related to a political protest in that city. Tavis Smiley was able to participate, but our time together was short. We weren’t able to address all the questions I had prepared, but the discussion was valuable.

Listen to the entire discussion with Tavis Smiley, podcast host Jay Frosting, and myself, Luke Landes, once it is available this weekend. Smiley is the host of Tavis Smiley on PBS and The Tavis Smiley Show on Public Radio International. Update: Listen to the podcast here.

In the interview, Smiley dispelled many of the myths about poverty. One such myth is the idea that those in poverty are entirely to blame for their financial situation.

On Consumerism Commentary, I’ve written that taking personal responsibility for your decisions, financial and otherwise, plays the biggest role in achieving financial security and independence. This is today’s American promise: “Anyone can make it in America.” The media love rags-to-riches stories, even if it doesn’t reflect a reality for the majority of Americans. It’s true that this country’s brand of capitalism is favorable to the situations European immigrants left behind. Religious intolerance, a caste system based on ancestry, and an economic system wherein generally only the first-born male would have rights to any property drove pioneers to create a new society or join a country with a promise to create a better life for yourself. Never mind that doing so displaced others who occupied the land here.

Even in this new society, you had to be a member of the elite to receive the rights as endowed. Not everyone begins on equal footing. The lack of early educational opportunities throughout this country is one of the strongest causes of generational poverty. As Smiley addresses in the podcast, Washington state is the home to large multi-national corporations, providing a huge advantage to those who reside in Washington thanks to the tax these companies pay. The educational opportunities in Washington state far outshine the opportunities in Washington, D.C., for example. Until a quality education for the entire country is given priority, generational poverty will continue to exist.

In the interview, we also address the issue of austerity. The concept of reducing the deficit and national debt is and should be a high priority for policymakers, but the timing of austerity measures, such as reducing funding to societal programs, is just as important. Smiley argues that we cannot cut the budget for these important issues when the economy is not “flowing,” saying that the budget is being balanced on the backs of poor people. Budgets are moral documents, and you can determine a country’s real priorities by evaluating where the money is going. If this country does not address the economy for the 99 percent — those who have seen no benefit from this “jobless recovery” — rather than the “1 percent,” Smiley warns of the downfall of the United States as a world leader.

No empire in the history of the world that at some point did not falter or fail. Every empire had its day. Americans don’t want to think we could be dangerously close to the edge… Poverty is the moral and spiritual issue of our time.

Time did not permit us to explore all the topics I would have liked to cover in the interview with Tavis Smiley. For example, I would have liked to talk more about the Occupy movement and getting a national stage for the issue of poverty. In recent weeks, civil rights are again receiving national attention, from the perspective of same-sex marriage. Not to minimize that issue of equal treatment under the law for all individuals, poverty deserves the same attention from our nation’s leaders.

Be sure to subscribe to the Consumerism Commentary Podcast to hear the interview with Tavis Smiley, where we address more topics related to poverty than are outlined above, as soon as it is available. Be sure also to read The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto. Update: The interview is now available as a podcast here.

Photo: DC Central Kitchen

{ 17 comments }

Do you reward your children with money for performing well in school? Do you use the promise of an allowance to ancourage appropriate behavior in the family? These are big issues, because they take appropriate behavior and can turn the incentive to financial gain. Children growing up believing that financial gain is the reward for correct social behavior rather than seeing the intrinsic benefit.

The idea that everything has a financial value seems to have become more prevalent over the last two decades, according to a new book. In What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel, the author argues that our trend of attributing market thinking to an increasing array of behavior could be detrimental to society.

The book has not yet been released as of the time of writing this article, so I haven’t read it yet. A review in Fortune Magazine is inspiring me to pre-order the book before its release.

The author notes how Americans are now more comfortable with marketing or selling things they might have not in the past. Selling ad space on foreheads, accepting money for branded tattoos, and paying students for each book they read are a few examples of things that might have been unthinkable a few years ago. I would add that the pervasiveness of the Internet has made some of this possible, when it comes to selling ourselves. Through the democratized ability to self-publish, people can easily market themselves without much effort. If you get enough attention, some company also looking for attention would be happy to pay you to do something newsworthy, like slapping a brand on your car for a year.

With the popularity reality television, the idea that anyone can become famous — not just for fifteen minutes but for an entire television season — and wealthy (think: Kardashians) is enticing.

Here are some thoughts from the Fortune Magazine review of the book:

The price we pay for this behavior plays out in several ways, Sandel argues. First off, poorer people are impacted disproportionately by the commercialization of personal space. How many affluent people are lining up to turn their houses or bodies into billboards? In this way, the decision to sell isn’t necessarily as independent and free as it may look. In a society increasingly driven by financial power, moreover, the wealthy hold even better hands than they would otherwise. Why bother encouraging your kid to study hard if you can simply grease his path into Harvard or Yale with the promise of a massive donation?

The more emphasis we place on money in society, the more power society gives to those who have it. I don’t think that today’s plutocratic oligarchy is too much different than western society in most of recent history, however. Those with money have always had the power. We like to think of government in the United States as “of the people, for the people, by the people,” but the Founding Fathers were mostly wealthy and mostly represented the wealthy, though several did their best to be sympathetic to those who were not as fortunate.

It was difficult to leave all old-world philosophies behind; property owners were afforded more rights than those who did not own property. A subtle class distinction still persists between homeowners and renters today.

Political and societal power has always been focused on an elite group of people who have the most money. This is why social change — giving the right to vote to all adults rather than a select few, extending human rights to all citizens rather than a select few, etc. — is only successful through revolution. Those with power and money aren’t much interested in sharing.

At times, market principles put in place to make an altruistic act look even more attractive do just the opposite. Sandel cites the case of a small village in the Swiss mountains called Wolfenschiessen that was once a candidate to house a nuclear waste site. When surveyed by economists, a majority of residents said they’d accept the site as an act of civic duty. The economists then added money to the equation, offering the residents as much as $8,700 each to accept the waste site. At this point, support for the deal plummeted among the villagers. From their perspective, the cash turned a sacrifice for the greater good into a plain old bribe.

Money changes the equation, whether used to encourage someone to do the right thing — who then learns that doing the right thing should always be rewarded the compensation — or to encourage someone to do something that would otherwise give him or her pause.

Fortune Magazine laments that the book does not offer any alternatives for a way of living that does not suffer from over-commercialization. Were wealth not to provide an individual so much power, it couldn’t be used as an effective incentive for changing someone’s behavior. Is there a way for the United States to hold onto the capitalism that’s such an important piece of the success of its individuals and the nation as a whole while taking money out of the power equation?

Also, how far will you go for money? Everyone has his price. Would you sell your body parts? Your kidney for $1,000? Your foot for $100,000? Your arm for $1 million? Would you kill someone for $100,000? For $50 million? For $1 billion? Morals may stand in the way to an extent — but that extent is most likely broken at some level.

Fortune Magazine

{ 9 comments }

If you’ve ever browsed through the television guide, you might have seen that there are a good number of television shows dedicated to the real estate industry. House Hunters International, Million Dollar Listing, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and Real Estate Intervention are just a few of the cable or network television shows designed to allow the real estate industry and home improvement companies advertise and reach a wide audience of consumers.

Just looking in my own town, with recently-built single-family homes typically asking $700,000 and above, it makes me wonder how anyone can afford to live where I do. The entire town can’t consist of upper-level executives and business owners who comfortably earn $350,000 a year, can it? One town over, house prices typically range from $1 million to $2 million, but there’s no upper limit. This is clearly a location for well-off individuals. And considering I may be looking to settle down and buy real estate, I’ve been trying to get an understanding of local real estate forces.

BasketballBut celebrities — the top echelon of movie stars and athletes — are in their own class.

Michael Jordan is selling his 56,000 square-foot home, asking $29 million for the house in a suburb of Chicago. The house features an indoor basketball court with its own parking lot and access and a wine and cigar room.

Jerry Seinfeld is offering up his Colorado mansion for $18.25 million. His property is much smaller than Michael Jordan’s at only 14,200 square feet. The property sits on 26 acres, while Jordans’ only includes 7 acres of land. Compare this to my apartment, which is around 1,300 square feet. This is only one of the television star’s vacation properties, with 11 bedrooms and a spa.

Rapper 50 Cent has had his Connecticut mansion on the market since 2008, when the recession was in full swing. His original asking price of $19 million has dropped to $10 million, still higher than the amount he paid to buy the property from Mike Tyson’s ex-wife, $4.1 million.

Celebrities live in a different world, where dropping millions of dollars on a property is commonplace.

Photo: John-Morgan
CNN

{ 14 comments }

Why The Time May Be Right for Buying a House

by Flexo
House for sale

I’ll be thirty-six years old this month, officially closer to forty than thirty. I’ve never owned real estate. Once in a while, someone judges this as a failure on my part, or a reluctance to “grow up” or enter a more sophisticated stage of development, as if maturity was somehow related to the ownership of ... Continue reading this article…

18 comments Read the full article →

Bank Switch Kit and Checklist

by Flexo
Broken piggy bank

With Wells Fargo changing their policies to be less consumer-oriented this week, I’ve received several questions about the logistics switching banks. In previous decades, closing your account at one bank and opening an account at another was a simple process. All that was required was to walk into one branch, ask to close your account, ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

TurboTax 2012 Online Review

by Flexo
tt-featured-img

This is a relatively long review of TurboTax 2012 Online, software for completing tax forms and submitting them to both the federal and state authorities. I’ve updated the review to reflect the changes to the software in 2012 (for filing 2011 tax returns). Recently, the IRS began accepting federal tax returned filed electronically. Even before ... Continue reading this article…

62 comments Read the full article →

Five Conversations Before Moving In Together

by Aloysa
Couple

This is a guest article by Aloysa, a creator of My Broken Coin. In this article, Aloysa offers five conversation starters for couples considering moving in together. Based on my own personal experience I can tell you that expectations of your significant other change as soon as you move in together. All of a sudden, ... Continue reading this article…

27 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 2212345···Last »