"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by David Ess

I think he meant they deserve to be poor IF THEY DONT PUT IN THE EFFORT. Do YOU think those people deserve to get rich? Buffett says he had a lucky break to....to have been born in the states, in this century. But he wasnt a couch potato like so many losers who had that same lucky break...he put in a lot of work to get rich.

Well, you can fantasize about what he 'meant to say', but that is not what he said.

"In the USA poor people are poor primarily by an accumulation of poor decisions and priorities."

The harshness, cruelty and ignorance of what he said are mind blowing. Marie Antionette, redux.

And I never said they deserve to be rich - where on earth did you come up with that rubbish? What I said was, they don't deserve for the rich to be making them poorer. Because their wealth is going down and the rich are going up.

The willful ignorance and blindness of the privileged is breathtaking.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

At least in the USA, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes.

The bottom 50% pay 0% federal income taxes.

So what taxation reductions are you speaking of.

Yes the rich pay most taxes but the leftists and ill informed deny it. What they reaklly mean is that they think the rich should be forced to pay EVEN more.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners. If the owners put a priority on being green at the expense of profits, that is still meeting the fiduciary responsibility.

I am not sure this is correct. I have seen statements from CEOs that they cannot be green or whatever because they can be sued by shareholders for failure as a fiduciary. Maybe they were just making that up?

[capn_billl]

The wealth of the poor, is NOT going down, and is definitely not the fault of the "rich" they are poor.

You are born penniless.

Some people managed to change that.

Amazon, and Walmart don't "steal" from me by providing quality products at the lowest price.

The only kleptocracy I see is the government taxing ALL workers (productive), and giving that money to the politically connected to remain in power.

Zuckerberg buying a new yacht does NOT make me poor, in fact it could be argued he made me richer by increasing demand for products I make which increases the market price.

The wealth of each person (including poor) is the total goods, and services divided by demand.

If you are poor, look at how much did YOU produce?

I have yet to have a single person tell me "I produced a billion dollars of consumer goods, and I'm still poor".

You either spent a billion dollars, or you are lying.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by David Ess

They are not a monopoly if you can start a competing marina.

You never clarified if there is open space or a regulatory system that would allow the creation of additional marinas.

Assuming there is space and no regulations that make it impractical to build a new marina....sure it's not a monopoly. It is still collusion.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I am not sure this is correct. I have seen statements from CEOs that they cannot be green or whatever because they can be sued by shareholders for failure as a fiduciary. Maybe they were just making that up?

Assuming we are talking about a large publicly traded company, at some point, the shareholders would have to vote to have the company pursue a green agenda. It can't just be the CEO making an executive decision.

Once the shareholders vote to make the green agenda a corporate goal, there is nothing to stop the company from following it.

[David Ess]

Capn bill.....exactly!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Hey, I just found several marinas in Florida for sale by owner for $1 to $3 million.

.....

The largest property was 40 slips for $3.5 million asking price, so barring me missing something it appears doable.

It can be done and is a very capitalist approach but....

At $200k each, you will need 18 investors (rounded up). That means you only have 22 slips to rent out.

Let's say each pulls in $500/month. Assuming a 90% occupancy, that's a little under $120k/yr.
- Property tax is around 1%/yr, so $35k.
- Utilities...let's say $12k
- Insurance...let's say $20k
- Maintenance staff...$75k for 2 part time.
- Etc....(repairs, dock replacement every 10-20yrs, advertising, eviction costs for renters, etc....)

Oops...it's already going to require annual costs be covered by the "owners".

Let's say you jack up the rates to match the evil capitalist and you just break even.

$200k with a 7% return would net around $14k/yr which would typically be enough to cover a slip rental in a nice area and you aren't responsible for anything. Also, by renting, you can walk away if the marina goes downhill or maybe you move out of the area.

If you really work the numbers, you might make it work if you ignore the value of the sweat equity people are putting in.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You never clarified if there is open space or a regulatory system that would allow the creation of additional marinas.

Assuming there is space and no regulations that make it impractical to build a new marina....sure it's not a monopoly. It is still collusion.

Regulatory system is....government. If any gov prevents competition, its violating capitalism, and those who collude are too. If there is no space for another , cometing marina, youre screwed, or boaters can boycott the colluders. Indeed , I have refused my custom to expensive places as i have indicated above.

[Bycrick]

Being "rich" may not give me the right to "rule over" everybody else, but it for darned sure gives me the right to outbid them for something. And I don’t see anything ethically different when the rich advocate for tax laws in their favor, when the "poor" and their advocates are beating the drums to get more from somebody (anybody) else. Several months ago, there were stories about the "rich" leaving NYC for lower tax states. It turns out that the top couple of percent were paying 50%+ of the taxes collected. So, losing just a small percentage of the "rich" can have a disproportionate affect on tax income, which certainly doesn’t help the poor.

I remember reading an article in a famous SF leftist paper many years ago. It seems that SF had very carefully crafted a new tax to "make the rich pay their fair share," ie to soak the rich, and, as a result, the rich were abandoning the city for the suburbs. "They can’t do that! We need the money." Why can’t they? Why would anybody stay someplace where the government just thinks of them as sheep to be sheared?

When I retired, I decided to go sailing. So I’m not living in the US. If I choose to not live in a low-tax state rather than not live in a high tax state, am I a tax dodger? Am I somehow supposed to maintain an address in CA and pay income taxes and property taxes there because they think they need the money?

When people say "the rich should pay their fair share," they can seldom attach are real value to how much that should be. Just as long as it’s more.

[Bycrick]

Being "rich" may not give me the right to "rule over" everybody else, but it for darned sure gives me the right to outbid them for something. And I don’t see anything ethically different when the rich advocate for tax laws in their favor, when the "poor" and their advocates are beating the drums to get more from somebody (anybody) else. Several months ago, there were stories about the "rich" leaving NYC for lower tax states. It turns out that the top couple of percent were paying 50%+ of the taxes collected. So, losing just a small percentage of the "rich" can have a disproportionate affect on tax income, which certainly doesn’t help the poor.

I remember reading an article in a famous SF leftist paper many years ago. It seems that SF had very carefully crafted a new tax to "make the rich pay their fair share," ie to soak the rich, and, as a result, the rich were abandoning the city for the suburbs. "They can’t do that! We need the money." Why can’t they? Why would anybody stay someplace where the government just thinks of them as sheep to be sheared?

When I retired, I decided to go sailing. So I’m not living in the US. If I choose to not live in a low-tax state rather than not live in a high tax state, am I a tax dodger? Am I somehow supposed to maintain an address in CA and pay income taxes and property taxes there because they think they need the money?

When people say "the rich should pay their fair share," they can seldom attach are real value to how much that should be. Just as long as it’s more.

[David Ess]

Bycrick, yes, the word 'fair' is too subjective to have any real meaning, like reasonable, and just.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It can be done and is a very capitalist approach but....

At $200k each, you will need 18 investors (rounded up). That means you only have 22 slips to rent out.

Let's say each pulls in $500/month. Assuming a 90% occupancy, that's a little under $120k/yr.
- Property tax is around 1%/yr, so $35k.
- Utilities...let's say $12k
- Insurance...let's say $20k
- Maintenance staff...$75k for 2 part time.
- Etc....(repairs, dock replacement every 10-20yrs, advertising, eviction costs for renters, etc....)

Oops...it's already going to require annual costs be covered by the "owners".

Let's say you jack up the rates to match the evil capitalist and you just break even.

$200k with a 7% return would net around $14k/yr which would typically be enough to cover a slip rental in a nice area and you aren't responsible for anything. Also, by renting, you can walk away if the marina goes downhill or maybe you move out of the area.

If you really work the numbers, you might make it work if you ignore the value of the sweat equity people are putting in.

Average rent is $900 a month here.

But good numbers, thanks.

If I buy a $150,000 slip at a Dockuminium i also have to pay several hundred a month "operating expenses", which includes a share of the property taxes.

The big draw here is the right to decide on the marina operating rules including liveaboard.

At fixing fees to cost instead of profits.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Being "rich" may not give me the right to "rule over" everybody else, but it for darned sure gives me the right to outbid them for something. And I don’t see anything ethically different when the rich advocate for tax laws in their favor, when the "poor" and their advocates are beating the drums to get more from somebody (anybody) else. Several months ago, there were stories about the "rich" leaving NYC for lower tax states. It turns out that the top couple of percent were paying 50%+ of the taxes collected. So, losing just a small percentage of the "rich" can have a disproportionate affect on tax income, which certainly doesn’t help the poor.

I remember reading an article in a famous SF leftist paper many years ago. It seems that SF had very carefully crafted a new tax to "make the rich pay their fair share," ie to soak the rich, and, as a result, the rich were abandoning the city for the suburbs. "They can’t do that! We need the money." Why can’t they? Why would anybody stay someplace where the government just thinks of them as sheep to be sheared?

When I retired, I decided to go sailing. So I’m not living in the US. If I choose to not live in a low-tax state rather than not live in a high tax state, am I a tax dodger? Am I somehow supposed to maintain an address in CA and pay income taxes and property taxes there because they think they need the money?

When people say "the rich should pay their fair share," they can seldom attach are real value to how much that should be. Just as long as it’s more.

Yes and i admire all those people who have been abandoning CA and NY for places with less taxes like Texas and FL. It must be embarrassing too that so many are famous giys like Joe Rogan, etc.

[Bycrick]

It doesn’t sound like Capn Bill has ever run a marina business. $3 million buy in. 50 slips. That’s $60k each. No mortgage to amortize.

Costs: probably a monthly payment to the state for the use of the water. Where I am, that’s about $30k/month. Insurance, easily $100k/year. Administration costs like bookkeeping and lawyers, $3000/month. Electricity, water and trash, $3000/month. If it’s not all volunteer jobs, maybe $20k/month for some employees. Reserves against future required maintenance, $10k/month. So, after you own the marina free and clear, you need almost $50k/month income just to keep the doors open. That’s $1000/month per slip after they kicked in $60k to buy their share.

If you think CO-Ops and condos are easy and cheap, talk to the people in Surfside.