“The $1,000 federal Child Tax Credit, for example, is much less generous than the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric cars.”
This news item seems to be going around like a wet cough. Maybe she’ll make her goal on semi-ironic hipster Lumbersexual entries alone.
How long before someone options the rights to this story and turns it into a movie, or at least a sitcom?
Oh, conventional wisdom. When it’s wrong, it’s not merely wrong. It can wreak havoc.
Quartz decided to test some of that good old conventional wisdom, specifically the adage that getting the worst house in the best neighborhood is a sound investment. The results were surprising. Or not, if you’re a determined skeptic.
we found that only rarely does the bottom 10% outperform the top 90% of houses in a ZIP code. On average, these bottom-tier homes do neither better nor worse than the others.
Looking at those numbers, we might have concluded that buying a neighborhood’s worst home is therefore a neutral investment strategy—a myth, but not a harmful one. It doesn’t maximize returns. But it doesn’t cost buyers either.
Then, however, we dug a little deeper—and we saw that buying the worst house in the best neighborhood can actually backfire. That’s because the more affluent a neighborhood is, relative to its greater metropolitan area, the worse the homes in its bottom 10% tend to perform.
In short, the nicer the neighborhood, the bigger the myth!
Choice quote: “This is a bathroom and a home office.” Very efficient.