Book by Cadillac offers unlimited vehicle access for $1,500 per month
01-11-17, 09:46 AM
#61
Here's the actual coverage amounts:
It varies by state, but in Illinois 100/300 is the legal limit for bodily injury. We allow up to $100k in property damage liability, so that's not maxed out. 25/50 of UM/UIM is also required, and would be provided based on the above.
For the situation you describe, you need a separate Umbrella policy over and above your standard auto policy. But that's true regardless of who the policyholder is. If you don't have one now and you're concerned about the possibility of a high-dollar lawsuit, you should look into getting one pronto.
It varies by state, but in Illinois 100/300 is the legal limit for bodily injury. We allow up to $100k in property damage liability, so that's not maxed out. 25/50 of UM/UIM is also required, and would be provided based on the above.
For the situation you describe, you need a separate Umbrella policy over and above your standard auto policy. But that's true regardless of who the policyholder is. If you don't have one now and you're concerned about the possibility of a high-dollar lawsuit, you should look into getting one pronto.
01-11-17, 09:56 AM
#62
Super Moderator
It's needed for anyone with significant assets to protect, full stop. This is true regardless of how they acquire their vehicles. You are just as vulnerable when driving your own paid-off vehicles on your own auto insurance.
01-11-17, 10:29 AM
#63
Umbrella policy has a limit on how many assets you own as well. Most companies only allow you to have up to 9 properties, some less and goes up to 5 mil max. Anymore would fall under business umbrella.
There is never enough coverage, just get whatever makes you comfortable.
There is never enough coverage, just get whatever makes you comfortable.
01-11-17, 11:23 AM
#64
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
So let's say you qualify for the $250k/$500k tax free sale of your primary residence and YOU DO SELL IT. YOU still will need a place to live. Depending where you are in the country, $500k can buy a lot of house OR not much at all. It's all relative. And if you don't plan on moving or selling the house, then all this is irrelevant bc no real money is made. It will all just on paper. Besides, one must be realistic bc if one "keeps" the house "forever", then upon death, just pass it onto the "kids"? IDK?
01-12-17, 09:59 AM
#65
Pole Position
I see what you are saying.
It is still relative to one's perspective.
An example:. Some years ago my good friend was trying to convince me to buy a real old house in the San Marino CA. Very nice, but old and over priced area next to Pasadena CA. He has a nice house in San Marino CA and it would be great to be his neighbor. But most houses there were very old. The newer ones are rebuilds and cost even more. We looked at a house that were donated to UCLA and on the auction blocks for sale. It was still up there in price. I learned that the reason for the auction was the original couple who owned the house for many years retired and kids grown and out of the house already. The couple COULD NOT AFFORD THE PROPERTY TAX which amounts to like $15k a year (this was some 15 years ago) even though the couple owned the house out right. They donated the house to UCLA as a tax maneuver of sorts to dispose of the house which needed many repairs as well.
So just because one owns the house out right does not guarantee anything. If the same house were in middle of nowhere in say, Alabama, the property tax would have been much lower.
So unless one actually sold the house and cash out, it's all just on paper. Not real cash money and actually a liability.
Needless to say, we did not buy in San Marino CA for many reasons.
It is still relative to one's perspective.
An example:. Some years ago my good friend was trying to convince me to buy a real old house in the San Marino CA. Very nice, but old and over priced area next to Pasadena CA. He has a nice house in San Marino CA and it would be great to be his neighbor. But most houses there were very old. The newer ones are rebuilds and cost even more. We looked at a house that were donated to UCLA and on the auction blocks for sale. It was still up there in price. I learned that the reason for the auction was the original couple who owned the house for many years retired and kids grown and out of the house already. The couple COULD NOT AFFORD THE PROPERTY TAX which amounts to like $15k a year (this was some 15 years ago) even though the couple owned the house out right. They donated the house to UCLA as a tax maneuver of sorts to dispose of the house which needed many repairs as well.
So just because one owns the house out right does not guarantee anything. If the same house were in middle of nowhere in say, Alabama, the property tax would have been much lower.
So unless one actually sold the house and cash out, it's all just on paper. Not real cash money and actually a liability.
Needless to say, we did not buy in San Marino CA for many reasons.
Most people do not own a house as well as a piece of land. Most average people either rent or they buy a home. Perhaps a starter, and then the primary residence. What people do not understand is that the home is not what is going up in value, its the piece of land that the house if situated on. Yes the a nice house is worth more, the physical structure depreciates, its the land.
How is it all "relative"? Person A buys his home at 25 and pays off the mortgage at 50. They now have an asset that has appreciated. From the age of 50 to death, no more mortgage payments. Nothing owing to anyone. All money earned post mortgage is theirs to keep. They also have a place to live for the rest of their life, they also can downsize etc etc. Person B rents from 25 to 50 years of age. They have no asset, 25 years of renting has gotten them nothing. And they have no place to live.
How is it all "relative"? Person A buys his home at 25 and pays off the mortgage at 50. They now have an asset that has appreciated. From the age of 50 to death, no more mortgage payments. Nothing owing to anyone. All money earned post mortgage is theirs to keep. They also have a place to live for the rest of their life, they also can downsize etc etc. Person B rents from 25 to 50 years of age. They have no asset, 25 years of renting has gotten them nothing. And they have no place to live.
Last edited by lexusrus; 01-12-17 at 10:11 AM.
01-12-17, 12:34 PM
#66
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
An example:. Some years ago my good friend was trying to convince me to buy a real old house in the San Marino CA. Very nice, but old and over priced area next to Pasadena CA. He has a nice house in San Marino CA and it would be great to be his neighbor. But most houses there were very old. The newer ones are rebuilds and cost even more. We looked at a house that were donated to UCLA and on the auction blocks for sale. It was still up there in price. I learned that the reason for the auction was the original couple who owned the house for many years retired and kids grown and out of the house already. The couple COULD NOT AFFORD THE PROPERTY TAX which amounts to like $15k a year (this was some 15 years ago) even though the couple owned the house out right. They donated the house to UCLA as a tax maneuver of sorts to dispose of the house which needed many repairs as well.
Something does not sound right. A 15K property tax in Pasadena is for a property of about $1.5 million. Does not matter if the house needs fixing, as this is super prime land. If the property owners cannot afford the tax on the property that was paid, then why would they donate? Makes not sense.
How would one be better off if they rented their whole life? Renting makes absolutely no sense, if you could of afforded a house.
Anyway, I think this will be my last comment on this as the thread has gone sideways. But I am very interested to read your response.
01-12-17, 04:43 PM
#67
Pole Position
Not in Pasadena, but in San Marino. Yes, prime location and whatever. No one was willing to pay prime price though. Even one of the guys interviewing for the CEO position for a nearby hospital there at the time got discouraged at the housing costs and decided to go elsewhere.
I think the couple owed too much PROPERTY taxes and the house was in bad shape. We physically looked at that house some 15 years ago. It was auctioned off.
I think the couple owed too much PROPERTY taxes and the house was in bad shape. We physically looked at that house some 15 years ago. It was auctioned off.
Something does not sound right. A 15K property tax in Pasadena is for a property of about $1.5 million. Does not matter if the house needs fixing, as this is super prime land. If the property owners cannot afford the tax on the property that was paid, then why would they donate? Makes not sense.
Yes, it does guarantee something. It guarantees that one has an asset that appreciates. And it appreciates because it is on a piece of land that goes up in value.
How would one be better off if they rented their whole life? Renting makes absolutely no sense, if you could of afforded a house.
Anyway, I think this will be my last comment on this as the thread has gone sideways. But I am very interested to read your response.
Yes, it does guarantee something. It guarantees that one has an asset that appreciates. And it appreciates because it is on a piece of land that goes up in value.
How would one be better off if they rented their whole life? Renting makes absolutely no sense, if you could of afforded a house.
Anyway, I think this will be my last comment on this as the thread has gone sideways. But I am very interested to read your response.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hoovey689
Car Chat
0
11-07-18 11:03 AM