Offered at $168.000 & up – Elegant Design, Built 2001

[click thumbnails to see larger pics]

This Condo complex sits on 56 acres with so many wonderful amenities: lake, infinity pool, fountains, a large impressive community center, and a large health club with full sauna and massage facilities, a dog park, a separate RV & Boat parking. Just 15 minutes from downtown Tampa and 20 minutes from the ocean beaches.

Incentive–financing plans make it possible to own with a dynamic opportunity called “Zero Net Down“*

These exceptional Incentive-Financing Plans can provide up to:

• 4 Years Mortgage Payments
• 4 Years Property Taxes
• 4 Years HOA Dues
• 4 Years Developer subsidized Rents
• 4 Years Hassle-Free property Management
• ZERO NET DOWN PAYMENT (after incentive)*

*“Zero Net Down” Buyer incentive program are offered only through our Network.

Contact Us Today About This Opportunity →

• Cash Flow Rental
• Up to $40,000 Government Cash
• Over 2 Billion in New Casino Construction
• Resort Beach Community

There are two unique government programs that can give you 50% bonus depreciation to offset income from real estate activities and give you up to $40,000 in cash when you purchase a new four bedroom pre-construction home. These programs apply to new rental properties in Biloxi, Mississippi, and are designed to entice investors to create desperately needed rentals in a city hit hard by past hurricanes.

Example: You are in the 30% total tax bracket, you buy a Biloxi four bedroom single family home for rental, the pre-construction price is $130,000, and you put $13,000 (10%) down. Assuming land value at about 10% of the pre-construction price, you will get about $60,000 in depreciation to offset income derived from real estate activities. This will be a tax savings to you of $18,000. PLUS you can receive up to $40,000 in cash from the state government.

PLUS you will have built-in equity at the time you close of about $15,000 (since you bought at a reduced pre-construction price). That’s total immediate benefits to you of $73,000! Not bad for a $13,000 investment!!

Biloxi, Mississippi is a story of unfortunate disaster turned into astonishing triumph as the city is rebuilding and emerging better than ever. One of the first and perhaps most important changes to occur in the city after the hurricane was the decision to allow the casinos to rebuild bigger, better, and in more desirable locations than ever before.

Almost $3 billion has been spent in rebuilding and relocating the previous casinos from water platforms to new land locations within the city. Six new casino complexes have already been opened, including the Hard Rock’s latest complex. Other casino operators see Biloxi as a land of opportunity and are quick to follow. Harrahs is scheduled to build a $1 billion complex in partnership with Gulf Coast native Jimmy Buffet…to be named “Margaretville.” The stage is being set to make Biloxi the new “Las Vegas” of the Gulf Coast. Talk about build it and they will come…these casinos are packed with people, and business is booming. Each new casino creates an average of 2,000 new jobs and pumps exponential dollars into the local economy. The casinos have placed a huge bet on Biloxi, and when was the last time you heard of a casino losing?

Contact Us Today About This Opportunity →

[Use of GO Zone bonus depreciation will vary depending on each buyer's circumstances. Consult your tax professional. Nothing herein may be relied upon as tax advice or relied upon for purposes of tax penalty avoidance.
Certain government programs must be applied for and are subject to approval. All incentive programs, prices, and availability subject to change without notice. Not all buyers will be approved for loans or government programs.]

The major drawback of real estate as an investment in years past has been its liquidity. For the most part, and particularly with technology and the Internet, that is no longer much of an issue. Properly priced property sells and real estate can be turned into cash should the need arise. The secret of course (not much of a secret), is not to be forced to sell but to sell when the market will yield the greatest return to you, the investor. “Buy low, sell high” is sage advice, but when it comes to real estate. “Buy, hold for a long time, sell” will almost always yield fantastic overall investment results.

Real Estate Investment Objectives:

Income – Real estate investments structured with enough down payment, will generate a positive cash flow. As time passes, in most markets, even a highly leveraged, negative cash flow property can turn into a positive cash flow investment.

Depreciation – Theoretical Depreciation is the tax deduction one can use against the income real estate produces. Depreciation is” on cash expenditure.” Residential income property is usually depreciated over 27.5 years. Only the improvements are depreciable, not the land.

Equity Build-up – This results from the periodic pay down of the principal amount of the loan, usually through monthly payments on an amortized loan. Even if there is no appreciation over the life of the loan, the property owner would end up with a free and clear property at the end of the loan payment period on a fully amortized loan. This is usually a 30 year period on residential property.

Appreciation – While the amount of appreciation varies from market to market, real estate is a growth asset and often the largest part of the return on an investment in real estate is the equity gained through appreciation. Even small amounts of appreciation year after year can be considerable. Usually, the longer you hold on to a property, the better. The effect of appreciation is greatly magnified by the use of leverage.

Leverage – Through the use of borrowed money (OPM – Other People’s Money), combined with a small amount of money of your own, you can control real property. The best leverage most of us can obtain in the stock market is 50%. In real estate, it is not unusual to obtain 80%, 90%, and even 100% leverage. With leverage usually comes risk, and with risk comes potential for investment reward.

In addition to the IDEAL as stated above, real estate investments have potential additional tax benefits – Investors are allowed to write-off (within income limitations) all operating expenses, interest on loans secured by the property, and property taxes. Also, Gain from the sale of real estate is treated as capital gain and investors also have the option of exchanging which, if done in accordance with the tax laws (IRC 1031), can result in partial to no recognized gain, which affects the immediate cash tax consequence.

Retirement years increase with life expectancy and you may be retired for thirty years or more. Will your retirement assets support you for thirty years or more?

90% of current retirees rely on charity and family support – or – they seek employment after retirement. Do you want to find yourself in this position?

The average social security monthly benefit is $800; future social security benefits are in jeopardy. Are you relying on social security benefits to assist you?

Financial models demonstrate that baby boomers will require $2,000,000 in retirement assets in order to guarantee a net monthly income of $5,000.

Will your retirement investments reach $ 2,000,000 by the time you are ready to retire?

Direct Your Retirement Account Into A Safer, More Profitable Investment In Real Estate

You may be able to direct your retirement account away from risky stocks, bonds, and mutual funds and into a safer, more profitable investment in real estate.

Section 408 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code permits individual investments in real estate within an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).

This means that you can have a tangible investment in real property – with a grant deed and title insurance – through your IRA. A self-directed IRA lets you – the “I” in IRA – decide how your money is invested.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 defines permissible retirement investments. Although not a new option, surprisingly few people are aware of this exciting retirement investment opportunity.

The IRA Invest Team can help you roll over your existing stock-driven IRA – or other investment fund – into an IRA real estate investment for higher return with no tax penalty.

Contact us to receive a free consultation, and let us show you the way to a secure retirement.

Phoenix is the fastest growing city in the U.S. It recently surpassed Philadelphia as the nation’s 5th largest city. The unemployment rate in May ‘07 was a low 2.9%. With the fastest growing population growth (per the Census Bureau) and virtually full employment, it’s easy to understand why smart home buyers are now taking advantage of the Phoenix market while real estate remains affordable. Remember, 80 million baby boomers soon will be looking to retire in sunbelt areas like Phoenix.

Incentive-financing plans make it possible to own for 4 years with zero net down payment after incentives and most carrying costs covered (mortgage payments, taxes, HOA).

These plans comply with RESPA, HUD disclosed, and have been successfully used on various developments for over 2 years.

WE OFFER A FLY-AND-BUY PROGRAM

Prices and terms subject to change without notice. Incentives require use of preferred lender. Program availability depends on buyer circumstances. Contact Us Today→

Washington — LIKE nearly half the American workforce, Pierre Randolph has no pension or 401(k) plan to look forward to in old age.

Nonetheless, the 44-year-old maintenance worker is cultivating a retirement nest egg with the aid of his employer, outside the traditional pension system and the rules that govern it.

“These days, you don’t have a retirement plan unless you make a retirement plan,” said Randolph, whose employer deposits his annual raise into an individual retirement account. “If you don’t save for it, you won’t have it.”

Plans such as Randolph’s could become more widespread under various legislative proposals to address a gaping hole in the nation’s safety net for financial security in retirement. The idea is for employers to deposit money from a paycheck straight into a special account, in some cases before it is taxed, and before workers have a chance to spend it.

The approach could generate savings for many of the 71 million Americans who have no workplace retirement plan. Advocates say it would cost employers little, though some employer groups are wary.

Regardless, the idea is finding support in both major political parties, which for decades have warred over retirement security issues.

“There’s very strong interest in this proposal from Republicans and Democrats, from many liberal congressional offices, from many conservative congressional offices,” said David C. John, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “This is one issue where we are able to work together.”

Tom Borger, who employs Randolph, began pushing his own version of the idea about 10 years ago.

Borger owns a firm that manages properties in the Washington area and wanted to help his staff of painters, maintenance people and others save for retirement. Many earn just $20,000 to $30,000 a year.

Like many smaller employers, he did not want to set up a pension plan that would be subject to all the funding rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. He also knew that few of the workers were launching their own retirement accounts.

“For them to say, ‘It’s April 14, I’m going to write a check for $2,000 for my IRA,’ it doesn’t happen,” Borger said. “They’re living paycheck to paycheck.”

To help, he offered to put the additional money each employee earned as a result of annual raises directly into an IRA that the worker would own and control. To keep it simple, he decided to make lump sum deposits once a year.

“For some of these people it’s the only savings they’ve ever had,” Borger said.

To make such benefits more available, John of the Heritage Foundation has crafted a plan with Mark Iwry from the moderate Brookings Institution, with whom John had clashed over proposals for Social Security. The fruit of their unusual collaboration is the “automatic IRA,” which would require companies to offer employees the chance to make a direct deposit into an IRA. The proposal is aimed at workers whose employers don’t provide them with retirement benefits.

With traditional IRAs, a worker each year can set aside as much as $4,000 in pretax earnings a year. The income tax on such contributions and on any money earned by investing the funds in the IRA is deferred until the money is withdrawn at retirement. The difference with the “automatic IRA” would be that the employee wouldn’t have to come up with the cash to make a contribution.

The idea has sparked interest at the highest levels, said Iwry, a former pension official at the U.S. Treasury under President Clinton.

“We’ve had no fewer than five separate requests for briefings from the [Bush] administration,” he said, ” … which we were more than happy to have with them.”

Unlike President Bush’s ill-fated plan to shift some Social Security money into private accounts, the savings idea is not immediately polarizing. Conservatives can say that it promotes personal investment and responsibility, while liberals can view the measure as a means of helping workplace have-nots. The 38-million-member AARP is supportive of the proposal.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, plans to introduce a version of the Savings Competitiveness Act he sponsored last year, which included a payroll deduction feature and emphasized IRAs, according to his staff.

In a more radical proposal, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is urging that the government provide every American with a $1,000 long-term savings fund at birth. After people enter the workforce, employers would automatically deposit 1% of the paycheck into special accounts and toss in their own 1% match.

The approach could boost the nation’s paltry savings rate and yield many workers nest eggs worth half a million dollars, Sessions believes. “That is possible, realistic, so easily within our grasp if we set forth the right plans today,” he told colleagues on the Senate floor.

Randolph, the maintenance worker and a widowed father of two adult children, has built a modest nest egg of about $25,000 under Borger’s program. He says he views it as an increasingly important part of his foundation for the future.

“My own thought is this is a good way that I can honestly save some money — knowing I can’t touch it,” he said. He recalled a worker who never saved a dime and came to an unhappy end, “in a nursing home with no one to care for him — basically a ward of the state,” said Randolph. “I don’t want to end up that way.”

Wanda Scrivner, manager of the brick building where Randolph works in a neighborhood just a few miles from the White House, is also participating in the automatic deposit program and is grateful for it.

She said that she burned through $40,000 in retirement savings she received in a one-time distribution after she left a previous job. “It was like turning a child loose in a candy store.”

Under Iwry’s and John’s automatic IRA proposal, employers that don’t offer pensions or 401(k)s would be required to give workers a chance to have a portion of their pay deposited directly into an IRA. To help cover paperwork costs, firms would get tax credits (perhaps $250 a year initially). Companies with 10 or fewer workers would be exempt.

John and Iwry unveiled the outlines of their plan a year ago. Even before they had worked out all the technical kinks, members of Congress were asking to sponsor legislation. Supporters are hoping that the momentum will build — and soon.

Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.), last week introduced legislation to promote such savings, and Reps. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) and Philip S. English (R-Pa.) are expected to introduce a House version this week. Supporters said employer costs would be negligible once the system was up and running, despite claims that some companies might find it inconvenient to get their programs launched.

The plan’s backers take heart in a recent statement by a U.S. Chamber of Commerce-sponsored panel that payroll savings for retirement should be encouraged in the workplace.

Some employer groups take a dimmer view of the initiative. They contend that the government should not meddle with their payrolls beyond existing requirements, and they fear that a new mandate could open the door to increasingly costly rules in the future.

Automatic payroll deductions might seem simple, but they can be a burden for small firms that do their own accounting, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group. Among companies with fewer than 250 workers, an estimated 43% do not even offer direct deposit of payroll checks, the federation says.

“Fundamentally our members are opposed to mandates,” said Macey Davis, the federation’s tax counsel. “They don’t feel they should be told how to spend their hard-earned money and who they should spend it on.”

Architects of the automatic IRA say critics are exaggerating the burden it would create. They note that last year’s Pension Protection Act encourages employers to automatically enroll workers in 401(k) plans. Creating a savings vehicle for the 40 million workers who don’t have retirement plans is even more critical, they say.

“Even if we get 10% of them — and we’re hoping to do much better than that — it’s a start,” John said. “It’s a move in the right direction.”

By Jonathan Peterson
Los Angeles Times Times Staff Writer
April 22, 2007

These savings and debt guidelines – put together by Charles Farrell, a financial consultant in Medina, Ohio – sometimes generate howls of outrage. But they offer a much-needed reality check, especially for folks who are piling on the mortgage debt so they can play in today’s overheated housing market.

The numbers tell you how much retirement savings and how much debt you should have, relative to your income, at different ages. Suppose you are 45 and hauling in $70,000 in annual income.

According to the tables, you ought to have $210,000 saved for retirement (3.0 times $70,000) and just $70,000 of debt (1.0 times $70,000). Are you hitting these targets? Probably not. Should you strive to catch up? You’d better believe it.

Taking aim

“I use the tables with clients to see if they’re behind the 8 ball,” explains Farrell, who specializes in advising individuals and corporations on retirement issues. “Are people a bit surprised by the ratios? Yeah, they’re surprised. It can be a tough pill to swallow.”

For instance, if you are 30, the tables recommend limiting your total debt, including mortgage debt, to 1.7 times income. That is a lofty goal, especially if you live in a major city on the East or West coast, where most people have to borrow heavily to buy even a half-decent house.

Similarly, if you are 65 and about to quit the work force, the tables indicate your nest egg should be equal to 12 times income. To many people, that will seem like an impossibly large sum.

Measuring up

But before you dismiss the tables’ targets as absurdly draconian, I have bad news. If anything, the targets aren’t stringent enough. The reason: Underpinning the ratios are three key assumptions – and all three might be a tad optimistic.

First, Farrell assumes your retirement savings will earn roughly 5 percentage points a year more than inflation. You may have a tough time notching that sort of return, given today’s rich stock- market valuations, skimpy bond yields and the drag from investment costs.

Second, Farrell assumes you will sock away about 12 percent of your pretax income for retirement every year from age 30 to 65. If your employer contributes 3 percent of your salary to your 401-k plan, that would reduce your share to 9 percent. Your required annual savings would also be lower if you expect to receive a traditional company pension.

Still, let’s be realistic: With the official savings rate hovering at about 1 percent, most folks – even with their employer’s help – aren’t saving anything like 12 percent.

Finally, Farrell might also be a little too generous when it comes to retirement withdrawals. Today, many financial experts advise retirees to withdraw just 4 percent or 4.5 percent of their portfolio’s value during the first year of retirement and thereafter to step up their annual withdrawals along with inflation. Farrell, however, assumes a 5 percent withdrawal rate.

Suppose you and your spouse earned $80,000 in your final working year and retire with 12 times that sum, or $960,000. A 5 percent withdrawal rate would give you $48,000 in the first year of retirement, or 60 percent of your preretirement income. “Thrown some Social Security, and the typical retiree would be up around 80 percent” of his or her preretirement income, Farrell figures.

Catching up

Wouldn’t mind having that sort of retirement income? My advice: Stick close to the tables’ targets – or you could find yourself in a heap of trouble.

Let’s say you are 40 and your family income is $100,000. The tables say you should have $125,000 in debt (1.25 times your income) and $180,000 of retirement savings (1.8 times your income). But instead, enamored by today’s highflying real-estate market, you have plunked for the big house, leaving you with a whopping $300,000 of mortgage debt and just $50,000 in retirement savings.

Suddenly, the math gets really ugly. To get back on track, so you can retire with a portfolio big enough to generate 60 percent of your preretirement income, Farrell figures you would need to sock away 20 percent of your pretax income every year for the next 25 or 26 years. Hitting that savings target would be all but impossible, because mortgage payments and taxes would likely consume more than 40 percent of your income.

“There is a fundamental relationship between what you earn, how much debt you have and what you can afford to save,” Farrell says. “If you’re servicing too much debt, you can’t hit your savings target.”

Real-estate junkies might respond that, come 65, they can cash out some of their home equity and retire in style. That strikes me as a dubious strategy, for two reasons.

First, it assumes that today’s real-estate market will keep soaring. Second, even if home prices hold up, these folks have severely crimped their ability to save, because real estate is devouring so much of their income. After all, the big house means not only big mortgage payments, but also maintenance expenses, property taxes and homeowner’s insurance.

Got far more debt than the tables suggest – and far less savings? There are ways to straighten out the mess, but the choices aren’t pleasant.

“Maybe you should trade down earlier,” Farrell says. “Maybe you need to delay retirement. Maybe you should talk to the kids about taking out loans for college. Maybe, if one spouse doesn’t work, it’s time to get a part-time job and then sock away all of that extra income.”

By JONATHAN CLEMENTS
The Wall Street Journal
Sunday, April 24, 2005