Income for long term cruising?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Only applicable to other assets that--like property--do not generally depreciate in value. In particular, with property, even if you completely neglect the building, the land will retain significant value. As such, it is extraordinarily unusual for the value of any property to go to zero.

With a boat, neglect it for ten years and the value could very well go BELOW zero! That is, where you would actually have to pay someone else to haul it away and dispose of it.

If you can find someone to pay for your boat for the next ten years, more power to you, I guess. You won't get me to fall for a scam like that one, though.

I am 100% with you, esp. where you talk about the value of the land under a property. In cruising, we are unlikely to hold a permanent dock contract. And dock leases are nearly always shorter than land leases too.

Still. Let me expand on the subject. For the sole purpose of an intellectual exercise.

Have you noticed that the market is already half way there with buy-now-own-later schemes like this? Think of the Moorings. Then think about the mechanism of leasing as applied by companies that do not want e.g. staff cars on their balance sheet. Now I think you may be a bit more willing to admit parallel schemes have been around for a time. The building blocks are all out there. It is just a question of time then before we see a company like suggested in my musings pop up. Or not, of course.

Then again, if you think of how X years old boats are priced for sale by their owners (vs. how the 'right' value of the same boats is seen by potential buyers) we must see that the re-sell value is nearly always overestimated by the owner of ANY object. This mental challenge is our common human failure (a cognitive bias). And new market techniques disclose and exploit such biases. Daniel Kahneman would love the above for his file. And we would come up with a fine new method of finding any boats right value, present and future.

You may have noticed already, as soon as 'boat value' discussions run into a post talking plain depreciation truths, posters will try to skip over this very inconvenient fact. Sure thing, we feel better thinking our boats are worth more. Such threads should be immediately closed by moderators or else moved into the jokes / maritime legends part of the forum! For they are exactly what scam is - talking others into believing that an object has higher value (while we own it).

Thus, given my full agreement with you on due caution required (buyer beware) I will stick to my gun and claim such an arrangement is legal in the law - both as a business plan (an intermediary mortgage-style broker involved) and also directly between individuals (our freedom to enter agreements is not limited to the type of agreements given in a legal code).

BTW: I am also not sure we should envision complete value loss of a boat in X years time unless we observe such a fact a common occurrence in the real world. Why assume someone would ab-use their boat only because in X years time the boat belongs to someone else? This is an assumption, but I have seen no proof, so I will say there is none (as usual, the weight of the proof is on the claimant).

Doh. ;-) Apologies for a longish post. This is more of a subject to talk over a can of ale than a post for this thread I think.

Cheers,
b.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Thus, given my full agreement with you on due caution required (buyer beware) I will stick to my gun and claim such an arrangement is legal in the law...

Oh, I think there's absolutely no question that it would be legal. I just don't think that any sensible person would ever agree to such a deal. At least, unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are proposing (which, to me, does not sound anything at all like The Moorings arrangement of buying a boat to be put into charter).

[a64pilot]

Think of it this way, if the cards were turned and you were the buyer not the seller, would you do it?

[hellosailor]

b-
"This is more of a subject to talk over a can of ale than a post for this thread I think."
Tinned beer, really now? I'm afraid I'll have to report that to the standards committee. Unless, perhaps, you meant that "like tinned beer, this subject is simply unfit to discuss." ?


There's a word for your "future ownership" concept. Sears calls it "lay-a-way plan". Except, the boat is getting used instead of kept on a shelf.


Leasing to a charter company is simply being a finance source for the company. If returns on investment and future value were reliable numbers, they could just go to a bank and say "We need five million to buy some boats". Nothing more needed. Except, the way they do things, they've got no problem ensuring they can dispose of the used boat in five years.


Same reason that BMW was always including "all scheduled maintenance" in every lease. That way, when they got the car back and had to sell it as a used car, they could get more money by showing the car had been properly maintained.


Get a psychiatrist to write you an Rx that says "Buy a boat and go sailing, it will do you more good than spending $150 a week talking to me." and then just deduct the whole damned boat as a medical expense.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by oblivionboyj

Totally agreed. That is why the issue of marriage is such a barbed one. It is a quickie incorporation in modern society. The benefits of the legal marriage are entirely ones of contract.
Personally I don't believe the state has a stake in marriage. It is nothing more than a way to generate revenue. The contractual aspects could be negotiated without the state, and the personal/religious aspects should be entirely absent the state. But because most of the world operates on the Lutheran model of marriage the state is involved. And by that understanding, a contract is a contract. A married couple under this model contracts to incorporate, and share resources. The contract can be dissolved. But the resulting damage and betrayal are much more harmful personally than simply dividing a contract that is totally devoid of emotional entanglement.
If licensed marriage didn't represent a quickie incorporation I would have never considered it. I got married to protect the woman I love, financially and in matters of personal business. I don't need a sanctioned license to love her.

actually, marriage is always a contractual agreement; whether or not the state is involved. marriages always involve the swearing of an oath. an oath is a contract of the most sacred kind. oath breaking is a serious thing in most societies.

the vows you give during the ceremony are the terms of the oath. those terms being to love, honor, and obey. to not be intimate with another outside of wedlock. to stick with the other person through good times and bad.

what the church doesn't let on is that if someone violates the terms of their oath to you, you are released from the oath. when it says what god has made let no man tear asunder, it doesn't mean you are stuck in a marriage forever regardless of what your spouse does. it's saying that no person who has taken this oath shall violate it's terms.

in our modern time, we only think sexual infidelity is a violation of your vows but, you swear to more than that. a wife who berates and abuses her husband because they are going through hard times, instead of being supportive and helpful, is violating her vows. a husband that becomes distant and cold to his wife when he discovers she can't have kids is violating his oath.

the only real difference between state recognized marriage and religious marriage is tax breaks, legal and financial bonds, and divorce lawyers.

when it comes down to it an oath is an oath is a contract.

but, i agree with you. the state has no right to interfere in marriage on anyone's behalf. it's a religious oath and everyone is protected by freedom of religion (in the U.S.)...straight monogamists, homosexuals, polygamists. it's not uncle sam's business as long as it's consensual adults.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I am not sure this one has been discussed.

How about we sell our boat NOW with delivery to the new owner IN THE FUTURE DATE.

The new owner pays us the price in annuities over the time span. We (the old owner) carry the insurance cost. Etc.

This method would give us e.g. 10 years of cruising and 10 years of annual income. And no boat selling hassles at the end of our cruising life.

This already works in property world, seems 100% applicable to any other asset.

???
b.

A good idea but risky in my opinion. Risky for the buyer that is you the seller not in a bad spot, except that you have nothing after ten years.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by first wind

when it comes down to it an oath is an oath is a contract.

And once again, this is just a semantic disconnect. That is, disagreement about what the words mean, not a disagreement about the substance of these things.

To me, the word "contract" implies a legally-binding agreement (usually in writing) that would (or could) be enforced by a court of law. Whereas an "oath" is a morally-binding agreement that no court of law would have an interest in. I suspect that the majority of people would make a similar distinction between the meanings of these words.

But it doesn't really matter. As long as you are clear about what, exactly, you mean when you use the word, and you use it properly within that meaning, there shouldn't be any confusion. The confusion comes when someone applies an unusual definition to a term, but doesn't tell anyone else that he is doing that. Or when someone applies an unusual definition to a term, but then uses it in the same ways, the same constructs, the same context, as if he were applying the "ordinary" definition.

In any case, again, just a discussion about the specific definitions of words, and not one about the moral/legal/religious constructs of "marriage."

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

And once again, this is just a semantic disconnect. That is, disagreement about what the words mean, not a disagreement about the substance of these things.

To me, the word "contract" implies a legally-binding agreement (usually in writing) that would (or could) be enforced by a court of law. Whereas an "oath" is a morally-binding agreement that no court of law would have an interest in. I suspect that the majority of people would make a similar distinction between the meanings of these words.

But it doesn't really matter. As long as you are clear about what, exactly, you mean when you use the word, and you use it properly within that meaning, there shouldn't be any confusion. The confusion comes when someone applies an unusual definition to a term, but doesn't tell anyone else that he is doing that. Or when someone applies an unusual definition to a term, but then uses it in the same ways, the same constructs, the same context, as if he were applying the "ordinary" definition.

In any case, again, just a discussion about the specific definitions of words, and not one about the moral/legal/religious constructs of "marriage."

A verbal contract is just as enforcable as a written contract. It's wise to get it in writing in case the other side decides to lie about what was agreed but assuming no one lies or loses thier memory, a verbal contract is perfectly legal and will override a written contract.

An oath is just a formalized verbal contract and would be treated the same as any other contract by a court of law. Typically it is done in front of witnesses to address the limitations of verbal contracts. The president taking the "oath of office" isn't taking on a moral obligation. It's legal. If you go back to the middle ages, when a new king came into power, the nobles had to swear a very legal oath of fealty to the king.

Interestingly, marriage has always been first and foremost a contract. Pretty much every religion treats it this way. It's only recently that marriage selection based on love has become popular. Parents would typically negotiate the contract, so the kids wouldn't make a poor financial choice based on love or lust. It sounds very crude but when you strip aways the finery, the guy is trading support and protection for the women and her children in exchange for the right to father her children.

I forget, how does this relate to income while cruising?

[oblivionboyj]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I forget, how does this relate to income while cruising?

It was in response to the many nuggets of advice that the OP simply dump his wife, rather than find a way to meet both of their needs. LOL