Reconsidering the wisdom of home ownership

[Clev]

I like the idea that somebody can use the word "grubbermint" and then try to say they're not talking politics. Apparently "grubbermint" is the newest fuel additive.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Clev

I like the idea that somebody can use the word "grubbermint" and then try to say they're not talking politics. Apparently "grubbermint" is the newest fuel additive.

The day you become an authoritarian moderator you might be able to censure me from saying it. Until then you will have to limit your authoritarian proclivity to merely that of a "wannabe".

[dcb]

Lol, you don't understand civility, you have to leach off an economy forum just because you think people care "I don't care if I am a jerk/leach, I will get mad when you call me one anyway!"

[Frank Lee]

Apparently "grubbermint" is the newest fuel additive.

I think it's a new flavor of gum?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

Lol, you don't understand civility, you have to leach off an economy forum just because you think people care "I don't care if I am a jerk/leach, I will get mad when you call me one anyway!"

Oh, so your idea of "civility" is that you can call other people names, and they shouldn't be allowed to respond to it?

Look, Mr. insect brain, if you insist on making a pest of yourself with your childish and relentless name-calling, at least learn how to spell your insults correctly: L-E-E-C-H.

OK, so go be mad if it makes you feel better. It sounds like you've got 'a bee in your bonnet' or maybe a bug up your a--.

[dcb]

Lol, spelling flames, wow, you sure must feel superior now.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Clev

The answer to that is simple: treat capital gains as any other kind of income.

But it is not any other kind of income. Unlike wages (which are a deductible business expense for the employer), money paid out in dividends & capital gains has already had corporate tax taken out.

If that retired person is making zero "income", but bringing in $100,000 in capital gains, they pay zero taxes right now.

Nope, check the tax tables. They're paying 15% on that $100K.

Oh, and by the way, that single person making $379,150 doesn't pay 35%. That's only on income OVER $379,150, and AFTER all of his deductions and credits. (And if he's earning $379,150, you can bet he has some high-dollar accountant that helps him hide half of that.)

And you & I don't do the same thing?

Oh, and don't forget that he only pays SS taxes on the first $106,800 and SDI on the first $93,316.

Sure. Social Security is a defined benefits program. What you get depends on what you pay in, so if Warren Buffett, for instance, paid SS tax on his whole income, he would have to be paid an astronomical amount as a monthly payment on retirement. And then suppose he lives to 110, drawing that payment which of course is indexed to cost-of-living. He could bankrupt the system all by himself.

So you're saying that they use the public roads, fire service, police protection, military and public waterways less than a poor person?

No, I'm saying they probably use these no more than anyone else, and are less likely to use welfare, unemployment insurance, and so on.

That 6,000 pound Land Cruiser (more wear and tear on roads, more oil consumption), yacht and instant police response that comes with living in an 'affluent' neighborhood disagree.

Putting aside the idea that your typical rich person would choose to drive a Land Cruiser (why not a Tesla?), is a 6000 lb Land Cruiser going to cause more wear & tear, or use more oil, than the 6000 lb jacked-up pickup parked in every other driveway out in trailertrash land? (And I say this without prejudice: where I grew up, trailers - at least double-wides - were considered seriously upscale housing.)

And I'm certainly sure that they're going to be using medicare and social security just as much as the poor.

Why shouldn't they? They're required to pay in to the system, why shouldn't they collect the benefits they're entitled to?

You mean that top 1% who control more than 50% of all wealth? If you don't see something wrong with that picture, you're blind.

Yeah, I see something wrong with that picture. It's a lie, that's what's wrong. Consider that the total amount in retirement plans (IRAs, 401ks, etc) is now around $18 trillion (U.S. retirement assets hit $18 trillion again: ICI | Retirement Income Journal - The information forum of the decumulation industry. ), which is just about the worth of all publicly-traded stocks in the US.

The rich like Warren Buffett, who paid a 17.4% effective tax rate last year? And the 400 wealthiest persons in America who paid, on average, less than 20% in taxes last year? And who pay little to no SS, Medicare and SDI taxes, but still are free to collect when they retire?

It's not the rate, it's the amount. They are paying way more than most of us do. If they have earned income, they pay the same amount of SS taxes as we do, and get the same benefits. And if they don't pay into the system because their income is all capital gains, then they don't get to collect.

Ah, now we're at the crux of the argument. "GIVE ME THAT, IT'S MINE!"

Exactly. Why should you get to take what other people have earned, just because you think you need it more than they do?

[Arragonis]

I was sent this by an American friend.

SPENT

I haven't tried it yet, but I have seen similar ones based on the UK tax and earnings levels so I think the idea is to survive a month.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I was sent this by an American friend.

SPENT

I haven't tried it yet, but I have seen similar ones based on the UK tax and earnings levels so I think the idea is to survive a month.

This is more propaganda, with the addition of soliciting contributions to a cause.

And you insist on pretending that THIS is not political?

(Oh, I see: it's political correctness. Those with whom you disagree are to be scorned as being "political", but the touting of your own pet political ideologies will never be anything other than virtuous and beyond reproach. )

[larrybuck]

SO!!! I have waded through these 12 pages. I was once a happy homeowner until divorce changed that.
We come into this world w nothing, and will not exit w U-hauls.

I have nothing against those of you who are homeowners. I just think that the more citified of you will feel more pain. The old securities of always safe investments in land, and houses, is slowly but surely turning south.

I would like to own my own place, but it's just not $ wise for me now!

I pay $350 a month to stay in my RV on wooded private land. I'm free to park several vehicles. My roommate (land mate) isn't under the same roof, he's in the Land lord's mobile home.

It was hard to watch my Mom pay $5,000 to redo her roof. I can have a tree branch come through my roof ( I have!) and be able to weather seal it for about $5.

Less can be more, especially when it comes to piece of mind. Debt free living allows you freedom to really live.

How many people would like to take back a smaller home, where they could have actually spent more time w their kids growing up instead of a mind set of constant upgrading?


I've been thinking of how to be more mobile yet when harder times come.

I've been checking out how to custom an enclosed car trailer so that windows, and living quarters could be at the front.
With a small car inside, there would still be room for a few motorcycles as well!

Hmmmmmm!!!!!! Us merkins need to use our heads, not just our hearts.

I took Arra's use of the word as simple slang for American's.


Watch out for big bidness, as Frank puts it. That is exactly what it is, and we don't want to get sucked into that vacuum, do we?


Peace; my brothers; think outside the box sometimes, the air can be very refreshing!

Aloha!