[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

One thing that would concern me about being a landlord today is the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regarding dogs. A tenant can move into a rental house with a dog or dogs and claim that they are service animals. The landlord has almost no protection against this and they cannot even charge extra for service animals.

There are two questions that a landlord is allowed, by law, to ask a prospective tenant with a dog:

1. IS this a "Service Animal" as defined by law? (the only answer the tenant is obligated to give is yes, or no)
2. What service is this animal trained to perform? (you can't ask what it's trained to perform *for the tenant* - only what is it trained to perform, generally).

Everyone with a legitimate service animal has been instructed on this law, they know that these two questions may legally be asked, and they have to answer the questions if they're asked.

If someone says "I don't have to tell you that!" then you don't have to rent the property to them. If someone says "he's trained to sit and stand and he rolls over great" then you don't have to rent the property to them. If someone says "He is a PTSD dog trained to alert a patient to the onset of a panic attack" then yes, that is a valid answer and you'd rent the property to them. Even if that dog is a retired service dog, who is trained to do that, and is now someone else's pet - it's still a legitimate and honest answer and there's nothing you can do about it. The upside to a retired service dog who's now a pet - it means it's an incredibly well-trained pet who is likely to never give the landlord a problem.

[M2inOR]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

While the landlord doesn't pay the sales/tourist tax, he IS responsible for sending the money to the tax collector. He could cover the tax himself, he's not obligated to make the tenant pay for it. But he is responsible for making sure it gets paid.

Yes, and it also depends on whether a person or business/legal entity owns the property.

Also, some people I know owned a home within their IRA and we're renting it out. According to the IRS, expenses, insurance, and taxes should be paid out of the IRA.

In other words, seek a tax professional for guidance and requirements to avoid surprises.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

There are two questions that a landlord is allowed, by law, to ask a prospective tenant with a dog:

1. IS this a "Service Animal" as defined by law? (the only answer the tenant is obligated to give is yes, or no)
2. What service is this animal trained to perform? (you can't ask what it's trained to perform *for the tenant* - only what is it trained to perform, generally).

Everyone with a legitimate service animal has been instructed on this law, they know that these two questions may legally be asked, and they have to answer the questions if they're asked.

If someone says "I don't have to tell you that!" then you don't have to rent the property to them. If someone says "he's trained to sit and stand and he rolls over great" then you don't have to rent the property to them. If someone says "He is a PTSD dog trained to alert a patient to the onset of a panic attack" then yes, that is a valid answer and you'd rent the property to them. Even if that dog is a retired service dog, who is trained to do that, and is now someone else's pet - it's still a legitimate and honest answer and there's nothing you can do about it. The upside to a retired service dog who's now a pet - it means it's an incredibly well-trained pet who is likely to never give the landlord a problem.

Personally, I think a landlord should be able to prohibit dogs from residing in their rental house.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Every time I have done the math for a Roth conversion, I reject it because it just doesn't make sense. Roth conversions are rarely a good idea. One thing I will mention is that, if you ever need assisted living or a nursing home, you can use your traditional IRA funds and take a huge medical tax deduction, thereby avoiding income tax on a large part of your traditional IRA.

Agreed that its not for everyone. IRMMA doesn't kick in for a married couple with two max SS incomes until about $3.0M in an IRA. Then the RMDs can push you into the IRMMA tax brackets. We don't have that much either to consider a ROTH conversion, although we will do a pension payout ROTH rollover just because we can. . and we will feel good about it, whether its perfect financial sense or not. . (basically don't want to feel left out!) and less taxes might help out someday if tax laws change


Anyway, enough on this topic, been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Personally, I think a landlord should be able to prohibit dogs from residing in their rental house.

yeah, we had a lawyer rent with a dog. . even though we said no animals, we let him rent. . . though he somewhat lied about the animal as well. . .

whatever, renting is not the "BEST" answer to the OP's sudden awakening!

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

yeah, we had a lawyer rent with a dog. . even though we said no animals, we let him rent. . . though he somewhat lied about the animal as well. . .

whatever, renting is not the "BEST" answer to the OP's sudden awakening!

Just to point out how inconsistent the law is, if a landlord only owns 3 houses or less and doesn't use a real estate broker, the landlord is exempt from all Federal housing discrimination laws involving humans, including racial and gender discrimination. But not dogs.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Every time I have done the math for a Roth conversion, I reject it because it just doesn't make sense. Roth conversions are rarely a good idea. One thing I will mention is that, if you ever need assisted living or a nursing home, you can use your traditional IRA funds and take a huge medical tax deduction, thereby avoiding income tax on a large part of your traditional IRA.

Conversion makes sense when you are pre-RMD, pre-SS and also have very little income from investments. Then you would ideally convert just enough to stay below the IRMAA threshold.

YMMV

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Just to point out how inconsistent the law is, if a landlord only owns 3 houses or less and doesn't use a real estate broker, the landlord is exempt from all Federal housing discrimination laws involving humans, including racial and gender discrimination. But not dogs.

Discrimination bad. But govt shouldn't be telling private owners what they can and can't do with their properties.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Just to point out how inconsistent the law is, if a landlord only owns 3 houses or less and doesn't use a real estate broker, the landlord is exempt from all Federal housing discrimination laws involving humans, including racial and gender discrimination. But not dogs.

Makes sense to me, I find I like dogs more than many people. Seriously, my older brother is blind and totally depends on his highly trained German Shepherd to be his eyes. I am in favor of protecting the rights of people who have legitimate highly trained service dogs. I am also in favor of harsh penalties for the many inconsiderate dog owners who abuse the vagueness of the laws and undermine the legitimacy of real service dogs. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Conversion makes sense when you are pre-RMD, pre-SS and also have very little income from investments. Then you would ideally convert just enough to stay below the IRMAA threshold.

YMMV

All depends upon how much money the retirement account is, regardless of your scenario.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Just to point out how inconsistent the law is, if a landlord only owns 3 houses or less and doesn't use a real estate broker, the landlord is exempt from all Federal housing discrimination laws involving humans, including racial and gender discrimination. But not dogs.

Wow, sure is inconsistent.

[MorTech]

Why have headache with real property in a world with Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89N7VL_u_6k

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by MorTech

Why have headache with real property in a world with Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89N7VL_u_6k

because bitcoin only has the value from the full faith and credit of the tech bros. . .

just another store of value based upon belief.

no electricity, got benjamins bro?