I have read articles and websites about how to do short sales and I have been reading the blogs about short sales and short sale nightmares, but lately I have been overwhelmed with requests to do short sales. I have never done one and would like to educate myself before jumping in.

Can anybody recommend a short sale course. I am in Palm Beach Florida, and am willing to travel anywhere in Florida for a GREAT course.

 Thank you in advance.

I noticed on another post several users suggesting Vistaprint. I enchourage you to use caution with this company...

---

I have a bank account that I was not using. I had used it at one point but when I consolidated my accounts, I decided not to close the account and just leave a little money in it to keep it open. Since I was not using the account, I never paid any attention to it.

Several months ago I just happened to look at the account online and discovered that there have been monthly charges and consequently monthly overdrafts.

I immediately reviewed the entire account, called my wife and asked her if she knew what the charges were, then filed disputes with my bank.
My bank sent me notices that I had to first attempt to resolve the issue with the company who charged the money.

This is where it gets interesting.

There were three companies all charging $14.95 per month.

I called the first company “Privacy Matters”. I spoke to a woman with an Indian accent named Visasan and told her that I had no idea who authorized the charges; I don’t even know what their company does. She explained that they sell access to credit reports and proceeded to offer to cancel the account and refund the last charge. I explained there were several months that I was charged and requested that all charges be refunded. She reviewed the account and told me the charges were authorized by “VistaPrint”; then apparently spoke to a manager and complied.

When I made the second call to “Shopping Essentials”, I noticed something interesting, both companies had toll free numbers (not interesting in itself), both companies are located in Connecticut, and both companies had the same phone system. The man who answered was named Vincent and also sounded Indian,  I explained that I had just called a company called “Privacy Matters” and was told that “VistaPrint” authorized the charges on my account and assume the same was true with “Shopping Essentials” and requested the account closed and all the money refunded. He also apparently spoke with a manager then complied.

At this point I was very suspicious, I was sure they (Privacy Matters, Shopping Essentials, and VistaPrint) were all the same company. The third company on my list was “Vista Print” also with a toll free number and located in Connecticut. While there phone system was slightly different it had the same prompts. The kicker was the person who answered my call was Vincent from the pervious call and YES he remembered me and offered to immediately cancel the account and refund ALL of my money.

1.  Why if they are all the same company and I told both people that the charges were not authorized didn’t they offer to cancel all the accounts and refund my money immediately?
   
2. There must be some law about companies authorizing charges on customer accounts and providing information to other companies even their own subsidiaries.
   
3. I am sure I am not the only person who has had this issue with “VistaPrint”.

•  Even though I was a customer of “VistaPrint” in the past I will never do business with them again. I am asking that everybody immediately STOP using “VistaPrint” and their subsidiaries or affiliates, forward this email to your friends and family, and advise them to carefully look at their accounts. I am sure many people just overlook these charges and think maybe their husband or wife made a purchase; I know I did.

I was wondering what people thought about this? Please comment.

---

RapidResales.com invites you to take part in its beta testing program.

What is a beta version?

A product's beta is an officially released version of a product to a select group of users. The beta version is intended for external testing of the product in order to identify configurations that cause problems, as well as collect requirements and suggestions from users.

Before its official release, a beta version ALWAYS undergoes a full cycle of internal testing, after which the application is sufficiently stable in the majority of computing environments.

Please note that a beta version is NOT the final version of the product and therefore the developer does not guarantee an absence of errors that may disrupt the computer's operation and/or result in data loss.

Consequently, beta testers use the beta version at their own risk and RapidResales bears no responsibility for any consequences arising out of the use of the beta version.

Participating in beta testing enables you to:

·          be among the first to gain access to the latest versions of RapidResales solutions and share your opinion with us;

·          help RapidResales improve the quality of the product being tested;

·          provide your suggestions on possible ways of improving the product;

·          free technical support;

·          collaborate directly with developers and other beta testers using dedicated sections of our forum; and,

·          receive discounted membership (80% OFF) for as long as your account is active.

When taking part in the beta testing it is necessary to:

·          spend a certain amount of time on familiarizing yourself with the product and testing it;

·          prepare and send out bug reports on any errors found;

·          provide suggestions on ways to improve the product being tested; and,

·          report on compatibility issues (specifically related to your configuration) in a timely manner.

Reporting problems:

·          To report an error, please provide a detailed description of the ways in which it manifests itself on your system,

·          the steps which lead up to the error and

·          characteristics of the hardware used for testing.

·          Send your description to the email address specified on the page containing the description of the beta version you are testing.

·          You can also report problems and get your questions answered in our forum.

·          You can also use this procedure to provide your suggestions on improving the product.

If you have any questions regarding the RapidResales beta testing program, please write to betatest@rapidresales.com.

Apply to beta test RapidResales.com. Pre-Registrants not selected as beta testers will receive special unpublished discounts.

February 21, 2007

Today, the leadership of the Florida House of Representatives released a far-reaching
plan to reduce property taxes.  They are certainly not being timid.  It includes a major
roll-back of current property tax rates, replacing all property taxes on homestead property with a 2.5% increase in the sales tax and then limiting the ability of local
governments to increase millage rates and property tax revenue.

Statutory Changes

First, the plan proposes an immediate reduction in local millage rates for all jurisdictions
except school districts.  The average savings is expected to be 19%, which would be reflected in taxpayers' next tax bill.  To calculate the new rates, local governments would
have to go back to their 2000-01 tax rate and then calculate the rolled-back rate for each
subsequent year.  A "rolled-back rate" is the millage rate that will raise the same amount
of revenue on the new tax base that was raised last year.  Only growth in revenue from new construction, improvements, and annexations is allowed.  The rolled-back rate
would then be adjusted for inflation.  In effect, local governments' new millage rates
would only allow for revenue to grow from 2000-01 by new construction and inflation.
 
School districts and taxes levied to pay bonds would be exempt from this roll-back. 
Initial estimates show that this would reduce local revenues by:

Counties:  29%             Cities:  38%                  Special Districts:  40%

Tax reductions would total $5.77 billion statewide.
 
The revenue cap may be exceeded with a majority plus one or two-thirds vote,
whichever is greater, of the governing authority.  If a local government exceeded the cap
without a supermajority vote, it would lose state revenue sharing funds.

Constitutional Changes

The House also proposes a constitutional amendment to replace all property taxes
(including school districts) on homestead property with a 2.5-percent increase in the
state sales tax rate, increasing it from 6% to 8.5%.  This would be the highest in the nation.  With local option sales taxes, the tax rate in some Florida counties would be a
high as 10%.

Eliminating taxes on homestead property would cost $13.55 billion.  The 2.5% sales tax
would raise $7.78 billion, meaning a revenue reduction of $5.77 billion.  The increased
sales tax would be dedicated to local governments.

Future property taxes on non-homestead property would be limited in the manner
described above.  School districts, which would not be required to calculate rolled-back
rates from 2000-01, would instead limit future growth by population and inflation.

A taxing authority could exceed the cap only with a unanimous vote of its governing
body. 

To show "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", the proposed amendment
would also limit state revenues to the growth of population plus inflation, including retroactive application to 2000-01.
 
This cap would include state revenues used to match Medicaid.  The state revenue
limitation may be exceeded in any year by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each legislative house.  State revenues collected in excess of the limitation must be deposited
in the Budget Stabilization Fund or used for local government tax relief.

This would be a much stricter limitation than the one currently in place, which is based
on personal income growth and excludes Medicaid.

Concerns Exist, More Study Needed

This is a very bold and extremely ambitious effort that has a lot of good elements, some
of which Florida TaxWatch has previously recommended.  The future limit on millage rates has been recommended by Florida TaxWatch and is essential to any real reform. 
We have also recommended tightening the state revenue limitation.

Increasing Florida's sales tax in order to eliminate property taxes for homesteaded
owners raises the question of whether it is equitable and wise to exempt one large class
of taxpayer from such a significant source of government income, while increasing another tax that everyone pays to replace it.  We would be replacing a proportional tax
with one that is more regressive.  Issues of equity and tax fairness will have to be resolved.

It will cut the cost at one end, for homesteaded homeowners, but this tax shift will add
tremendous costs to business inputs, increase the cost of doing business in Florida, and
make us far less economically competitive with our neighboring states.  

There are questions as to whether it is a good idea to have the highest sales tax rate in
the nation.  It could create competitive problems, increase taxes for anyone who doesn't
currently pay property taxes, make Florida more expensive (and less desirable) for tourists, and create some major enforcement issues.  With sales taxes that high, people
will search for ways to avoid them.  It could also hasten the eroding of Florida's sales tax
collections from internet and other remote sales.

In trying to achieve needed results, Florida must make sure there are no unintended
consequences that could kill the goose that that laid the golden egg of economic vitality.
 
Another concern is that by eliminating property taxes for homesteaded homeowners, we'll be taking these voters almost entirely out of the local budgeting and spending
process, which is not healthy for a democratic republic.  

Also, without a limit on overall local revenues, such a huge property tax cut will surely
result in other local taxes and fees, including special assessments and impact fees.

Florida TaxWatch, in a research report entitled Controlling Escalating Property Taxation and Local Government Spending and Revenue released in December by its Center for Local Government Studies, recommends repealing the Save Our Homes amendment,
allowing homeowners to keep the reduced assessments they currently enjoy and then
establishing limits on the growth of both millage rates and total local government revenues in the future.  This is a system that protects taxpayers' current savings, keeps
inequities from getting worse and begins to equalize them, and, most importantly, holds
taxes down for all property owners in the future.

This is very much a work in progress and we stand ready to assist the Legislature,
Governor, and Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in their efforts to bring tax
fairness to all Florida taxpayers.