6 7 8 9 10
frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 6:45 a.m.
Boost_Crazy said:

I think a lot of people really misunderstand who exactly the rich and the poor are. They are not static groups. Many people have been both rich and poor, sometimes more than once, in their lives. When most people say they want to be rich, I don't think they fully understand what that means, or how it is achieved. It's not a secret. Most rich in this country were not born rich. Becoming rich takes a combination of smarts, talent, hard work, luck, opportunity, and planning. Lots of ways to cook the recipe, but people who are not rich and do not plan to become rich tend to focus on the opportunity and luck parts of it. They also focus on those who have inherited wealth or amassed it quickly. They also tend to associate wealth with unfairness. But the truth is most people who have become rich did so in a very boring and undramatic manner. They lived modest lives within their means. They tried to avoid borrowing money. They paid themselves first. Not as sexy as a life of luxury, but that is how most of the rich got that way. Maybe not the 1%ers, but most of the others in the top 10%. 

I'm not rich, yet. But I will be. I'm smart, and I work hard. I don't like risk, so I'm not the type to get rich quick. But I can plan and do math.  I know how much I need to save and invest, little by little. It adds up quick, and the younger one starts, the better. I kick myself for not starting earlier. It does take sacrifice. You may have to work a job (or two) that you don't like for a bit, or skip that vacation that you want to take. I think it is short sighted to demonize the vast majority of the rich because they had the strength to make choices that many others had but passed on. 

Rich is a relative thing,  many would look at me and say I’m rich.  After all I have a home worth a million +  and  a relatively modest mortgage. I’m not even in the neighborhood of rich compared to most of my neighbors. 

We are talking the movers and shakers of Minnesota.  Governor, senator,  CEO, CFO of Fortune 500 companies, 3&4th Generation really serious wealth.   Cargill’s ( largest privately held company in America. )My House is right under the flight path of a neighbor who commutes in a multimillion dollar helicopter to and from his office tower. 

These are people who don’t really think until it’s at least 6 figures.  The kind who order 2 $65,000 custom chandeliers, hang them over their dining table, decide they don’t really like them, consign them to hang in their garage  and order 2 more.  

Put on a $185,000 roof on their new house, decide they’d rather have a slate roof and spend another 1.2 million dollars getting exactly what they want.  

The really rich are simply different than you or I.

they donate millions in order to reap billions. So politics is just a game to them. They are smart enough to make a serious donation to both parties.  

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 7:37 a.m.
EastCoastMojo said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Perhaps, but then I apply the old addage of "don't hate the player, hate the game". I don't blame the rich, although I understand the point you are making about them making the rules in their favor as much as possible. People with influence are gonna influence.  Kind of like a casino stacking the odds in favor of the house, except you can choose to not patronize a casino. So how does the average joe become influential? Should it start with a solid education and exposure to critical thinking and problem solving? Can we get there from here or are the cards so solidy stacked against the middle and lower classes that we can never level the field?

We agree, don’t hate the player, hate the game.  

Except we are all “in the game”  with only the rich to make the rules.  I honestly admire the wealthy who have earned it on their own. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc.   I’d like to be rich myself 

I do have a problem with inherited wealth as I believe all Americans should.  

If you accept the premise that wealth equals power And understand what freedoms America was founded on.   Freedom from Tyranny, No taxation without representation.    

Then you understand my logic. Wealth in those days was passed down. The King to his son.  Noble birth to noble birth.  

Rules were made by those who failed to understand the value of work and diligence.  Thus fundamentally flawed. 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 7:38 a.m.

In reply to Robbie : what would we pick for the best ROI?  Great question!   

It’s simple and complex  the simple part is an equal education for all.  Education is the magic bullet.  

But some of our best and brightest get very little due to circumstances beyond their control.  Bad parents poor parents poor and bad parents  living around other poor and bad parents  have little money to pay for education.  

While good parents  with wealth can easily afford a great education for their children.  

Yet education depends most on where you live, not how much potential you have.  

Fix that!  And it will be worth 5 aircraft carriers !  ( the complex part is how education beats aircraft carriers)  

 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 7:51 a.m.
Streetwiseguy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Nah.  Its time to grow people with a sense of impending doom, so they are motivated to improve themselves when they have the opportunity, instead of hanging your future well being on a man whose father died at 56.  The feeling that the simple act of wanting to move out and divorce shouldn't change my desire to support them strikes me as odd, too.

My daughters got told, "There is no man alive worth giving up your ability to look after yourself."

Maybe I'm angry too...

Yes you do sound angry,  but there is a little bit of truth in what you say,  “ No man alive———“ 

Goes for guys too. “No girl alive ———“

As for filling your kids with gloom and doom. I know you are either kidding or overly bitter because that’s how anger gets past on. Not how we instill hope and effort.  

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 8:04 a.m.
Driven5 said:
frenchyd said:
Driven5 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm picking on it because it was explicitly brought up as part of the pathway to homeownership, and subsequently wealth and contentment, when it's actually not.

But it’s part of the tax code.  Can you defend any part of the tax code?  

It doesn't much matter to me what code it's part of...tax, penile, da Vinci, or otherwise.  You also don't seem to hold the tax code in very high regard, but were the one defending this part of it. I will however defend the defensible.  So while perverted by decade after decade of adding loophole after loophole for the highest earners (and corporations) to circumvent more and more of it, the basic foundation of the tax code being progressively structured is readily validated by the inherently diminishing value of income and wealth.

First of all hour premise is wrong.  Since 47% of Americans own homes. ( (down from  the 64% high) and most homes have mortgages I fail to understand your ~13% number.   

If you are using that 13% number based on calculations provided to justify the increase of standard deduction while removing  the  unlimited interest and tax, you are falling for one of the really great rip offs of all time.  

In a false attempt to sell that massive 1.5 trillion dollar deficit increase 

Appleseed
Appleseed MegaDork
3/22/18 8:22 a.m.

We are all in the game? No, we ARE the game to the wealthy. And we are played every single day. 

WilD
WilD Dork
3/22/18 9:22 a.m.
Boost_Crazy wrote:

I think a lot of people really misunderstand who exactly the rich and the poor are. They are not static groups. Many people have been both rich and poor, sometimes more than once, in their lives.  They also tend to associate wealth with unfairness. But the truth is most people who have become rich did so in a very boring and undramatic manner. They lived modest lives within their means. They tried to avoid borrowing money. They paid themselves first. Not as sexy as a life of luxury, but that is how most of the rich got that way. Maybe not the 1%ers, but most of the others in the top 10%. 

I'm not rich, yet. But I will be. I'm smart, and I work hard. 

I used to think like you do, but this is probably not accurate.  What is rich?  I would argue ammassing a modest seven figure net worth and retiring is not rich, that is merely middle class.  If you look at the pension and retiree medical benefits many boomers received for relatively modest work, they would require a couple million dollars in a 401K to gurantee an equivalent amount of security.  Rich are the people who will spend $50K+ on a party, have multiple houses, boats and cars worth more than our entire net worth, etc.  They almost literally can't spend all their money because there is simply too much of it.  You do not get there by saving.  

When I feel angry, it is somewhat related to this.  I am just shy of 40 and I put a fair amount of money away towards retirement, live in a modest house etc.  But, as I've aged, I realized I'll never really be rich.  The most I can resonably hope for is a comfortable retirement, if I live that long.  It's a difficult balance between saving for the future and actually living life.  I feel like I am waiting to start living the life I want in some ways.  It's when I recognize I might not survive the wait... that makes me angry.  I guess it's existential crisis time. 

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
3/22/18 9:52 a.m.

Why this obsession with wealth?

Especially since anger over money is backwards of what you assume.  There's FAR FAR more angry people over welfare and helping the poor than wanting to tax the rich.  People were angry over the ACA because it provided healtcare to everyone, when people who had it thought they deserved it more.

Look at how the arguments are presented- everything you hear about benefits to the poor is negative.  Everything you hear about benefits to corporations is positive.  They get similar amounts of your tax dollars.  It's not the poor being angry of the rich that you hear, it's the rich claiming that the poor are jealous.

But when you actually look at studies of happiness, it's very often the poor areas that are the happiest- which suggest they are not angry or jealous of anyone.

Robbie
Robbie PowerDork
3/22/18 9:57 a.m.

The new classes: 

lower class - lives paycheck to paycheck, net worth essentially 0

Middle class - lives with large home and consumer product loans, net worth negative

Upper class - makes the majority of their money from things they already own, rather than the time they spend

Everyone (and I truly mean everyone) in the United States can get to upper class status with hard work and good planning. Start at Mr money mustache dot com.

Robbie
Robbie PowerDork
3/22/18 9:58 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Agree 100%. Note that the classes are not measured by happiness!

Duke
Duke MegaDork
3/22/18 10:00 a.m.
alfadriver said:

Especially since anger over money is backwards of what you assume.  There's FAR FAR more angry people over welfare and helping the poor than wanting to tax the rich.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson MegaDork
3/22/18 10:45 a.m.

Pre posting edit.  I seem to come late to these big discussions, start reading once they are 3,4,5 pages old then start to write a reply.  Then I find I’ve jotted down way too much drivel trying to address several different things I’ve read. Sorry, but here comes another long post.

 

I don’t see the tax system as having anything to do with the day to day anger or resentment in society up until now.  I do feel the tax cuts over the last 15 years, while personally benefiting me, have been a monumentally bad idea.  The economy was working without them, and all they’ve really done is increase the deficit.  I think it’s quite hard to argue that our economy would be that much different if we hadn’t had them, but the deficit sure is larger.  I also don’t see $1,000 an hour lawyers as having much impact.  The wealthy and uber wealthy have always had access to the very best legal representation.  While it’s easy to point to gross injustice today, at least it get’s identified and reported on, even if ‘we’ can’t do much about it.  Go back 100 years and not only was there still gross misconduct and injustice by the uber wealthy, they were far more protected by the ‘system’ than they are today.  There are far more laws to protect workers from danger and direct poor treatment than back then.  Do we want to go back to strike busters, employers evicting your family from company owned housing the day after you were killed due to no safety standards etc. etc.

 

I do see the artificially low minimum wage as hurting families and being one of the few backwards steps in society.  Yes, 100 years ago there were no minimum wages, but the upside of some of the turmoil of the first half of the last century was that safeguards were put in place and (especially) working class families were more protected and stable in the work place.  Then the post war years were a huge boon overall to the economy and standard of living for millions.  No, it wasn’t’ perfect and it was a horrible time if you were a minority or a woman (thanks for holding down the fort and building industry during the war, now put your dress and heels back on and look after the kids like a good ornament).  But the truth is that growth in wages and jobs did help those minorities as prejudice and discrimination was slowly whittled away both social and through laws over the next decades.  The issue now is that we let large companies (Walmart being the poster child here) pay such low wages that a) families in these jobs need government assistance to survive and b) Because they pay so little, thus can charge so little, they drive the small guys out of business so there are fewer options for those on minimum wage to look elsewhere for a better deal. 
Now if you’re young and only supporting yourself you can just about get by on minimum wage and have the option of moving to a different area for a better position.  But for many, especially with families there are a lot of inhibitions to them moving out of area for a better deal.  Equally bad is these artificially low wages mean the government (read you me and other tax payers) are effectively subsiding the profits of mega corps.

 

Then there’s the cost of education.  Education seems to be the one industry that uses increases in technology to drive more cost rather than make efficiencies.  We’ve spent the last 25 years trumpeting that everyone needs a four year degree, we’ve also spent the last 30+ years driving the cost of those degrees up and up ever higher.  This means more debt for more people who then have a harder time paying it back.  When people graduate with the equivalent of a small mortgage in student loans they can’t then afford a mortgage or car loan, further slowing investments that would help them, the economy and society as a whole grow.  Add into that the (to my mind) criminal act of the loan industry lobbyists making student loan debt non dischargeable no matter what, even in bankruptcy to the point where you can have your social security check garnished, means millions will be saddled with crippling, or at least a significant debt that will never grow the economy.  At least here there are signs the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.  There are more and more articles, editorials and discussions about people not needing an expensive degree for many jobs.  Collage enrollment seems to be slowing, stagnating or even dropping in different subjects/regions depending on where you look.  I hope that has several knock ons.  First a reduction in costs, second a reduction in debt and third a move to more job focused technical training for many.

 

Next up the big bad boogy man health care.  This is the contentious one as it is such a polarizing topic for each side.  But let’s stick to inarguable facts.  The US has by far the most costly healthcare.  The US rates low on quality of health care when compared to other first world developed nations.  It’s beyond ridiculous that Medicare and medicate are legally prevented from negotiating drug prices.  Liability laws and suits have driven a ridiculous number of unneeded tests into our system as docs feel they need to cover themselves for every unreasonable eventuality.  Finally, health care costs are the single biggest thing that pushes families into bankruptcy, not credit card debt, not buying too much house, not even student loans (as bankruptcy doesn’t help) but health care.  That is wrong wrong wrong.  We can argue the way out of this for days.  Obviously I’m a proponent of a single payer system, others believe in other methods, but it’s hard to argue the current system is a mess that puts millions of people under a lot of unnecessary stress.

 

Others have covered the media, but I agree.  We’ve got to the point where it’s hard for people to find a fair balanced view.  It’s been shown that even if someone goes goggling for a different perspective, based on past search history a Liberal and a Conservative will be offered different search results to the same queries.  Those results pander to what your past Google (or whoever your search engine is) search history tells them you want to see.

 

I’m not sure people are actually more angry though.  I think most people have a base level of happiness/anger/trust/mistrust etc.  I think that as race, gender and orientation issues have improved for many, the direction of peoples dissatisfaction (for those so inclined) is now congregating around a smaller number of issues.  50 years ago you had people angry at war, angry at racial prejudice, angry at gender bias etc.  While those things are still issues, they are far less of the issues they were.  Now the growing social and economic inequality are the rallying point for the disenfranchised rather than several different movements.

 

I also think that there are exceptional people in every generation.  I am lucky enough to know many incredibly wealthy people and families.  Most of those are first generation wealthy who came from modest working class or middle class backgrounds.  Exceptional people will always find their way to the top.  I’ve asked many of them what the key to real success is (like 8 figure success)  Every single one of them says the same thing.  Bloody minded determination.  They don’t claim to be the best or the brightest, they all claim not to give up no matter what.  If they get knocked down, they get up and start again.  I’ve also noticed that a lot of second generation money tend to be in the ‘maintenance’ camp.  They work hard at keeping the prior generations wealth stable to pass on.  Finally most third generation wealth I’ve personally witnessed seems to be a one way ticket down, spend spend spend.  I’m sure this isn’t universal, but it’s what I see.

Driven5
Driven5 SuperDork
3/22/18 11:08 a.m.
frenchyd said:

First of all hour premise is wrong.  Since 47% of Americans own homes. ( (down from  the 64% high) and most homes have mortgages I fail to understand your ~13% number.  

Where do you get your 47%.  Everything I can find says we're at 64% right now.  And while the all-time high was 69%, that's not necessarily a good thing.  That occurred during the peak of the housing bubble, and getting people who can't afford a home to buy one was a major factor in the great recession.

Notice also that the last time the homeownership rate eclipsed 65%, it too was immediately followed by a recession.  I'm not saying that correlation implies causation here, although we all know what role housing played in the last recession. But who knows, from a economic stability standpoint, maybe the 63%-64% is actually where homeownership is 'supposed' to reside under our general economic system?  Want it to go up?...Bigger changes need to be made that just offering tax breaks to people who don't actually need them.

Regarding the 13% number, it was not my study so I don't have all of the source data, and it may have gone up in the last few years since due to increasing housing prices, but the premise was this.  Looking at just the overall homeownership rate and overall mortgage only gives you a best case scenario.  So lets say 65% own homes and 65% of those owe against their home. At best that's still only 42% when assuming everybody who owns a home both itemizes and has a mortgage.  Instead, the calculation goes more like this...You actually start with only 30% of Americans who itemize, and subtract out those itemizers who have no mortgage due to renting or paying it off. Now I too don't see how that alone gets it from 30% all the way down to 13%. But even at 20%-25%, that's still not a group in need of handouts to purchase their home.  If I had to guess at how they got down to 13%, I'd say the rest might have to do with the fact that those percentages are households, and not necessarily individuals filers or non-filers within the household.

Of course, when you look into it further, there will be even more (mostly at the lower end of the itemizing mortgage holder income spectrum) who benefit marginally at best from it, due to some combination of their low tax bracket, exceeding the standard deduction by only a small amount, and their relatively low remaining principle accruing similarly low interest.

alfadriver
alfadriver MegaDork
3/22/18 11:16 a.m.
Duke said:
alfadriver said:

Especially since anger over money is backwards of what you assume.  There's FAR FAR more angry people over welfare and helping the poor than wanting to tax the rich.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Then why do we have far more overwhelming news against programs for the poor vs the one supporting the rich?  Why is welfare and the ACA so hated, but we are ok with giving money to oil companies so that they can drill more oil?  

Crap, people voted against programs that HELP THEM because they are told that the programs are so bad for us. 

It would be great if you were right, but the news very much says the opposite.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 11:19 a.m.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

A brief reply to a well written piece.  

I agree with your points  and your conclusions. 

With maybe one slight correction about the size of the problem. Most angry  people contain them self as much as possible.  Person walking down the street likely has little outward sign of the rage burning within.  

So it’s impossible to make that sort of judgement.   My conclusion is based on the apparent increase in mass shootings. While a case could be made that percentage wise  things are about the same, I think that’s more a matter of semantics than reality.  Especially not to the parents of the dead.  

I do however find a flaw in the logic that says the tax code isn’t the problem.  ( first let me state it’s not the only reason but a significant one). 

Imagine if tax deductions were granted on the basis of job creation with good paying jobs earning the maximum deduction?  

Create a living wage job and the employer gets a 110% deduction.  Less than a living wage a 75% deduction.  Wages 2 times living wage earn a 220% deduction etc  

 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 11:33 a.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

Your point seem valid so I won’t quibble.  I don’t think either of us want to “win” on statistics.  

However as you said real estate prices have gone up and are approaching what they were near the previous peak.  So any number written in the tax code will be eclipsed.  Remember Alternative minimum tax?  At one point it really only affected the rich.  Now it’s hitting many many modest income earners. I’m bumping up near it as a school bus driver. 

Can we both agree that the tax code is an unfair burden on those with a modest income?  The fact that most of the tax code helps the rich over working wage slaves?  

When Warren Buffet pointed out that percentage wise he paid less taxes than his secretary? And that should he choose he could pay nothing. 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 11:37 a.m.
alfadriver said:
Duke said:
alfadriver said:

Especially since anger over money is backwards of what you assume.  There's FAR FAR more angry people over welfare and helping the poor than wanting to tax the rich.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Then why do we have far more overwhelming news against programs for the poor vs the one supporting the rich?  Why is welfare and the ACA so hated, but we are ok with giving money to oil companies so that they can drill more oil?  

Crap, people voted against programs that HELP THEM because they are told that the programs are so bad for us. 

It would be great if you were right, but the news very much says the opposite.

Why indeed? Aide for the poor is such a tiny fraction of the government spending compared to defense or corporate subsidies.   

Look at black lung disease! Miners are dying from working in the coal mines but look at things like Obamacare that deals with black lung disease as bad!  

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson MegaDork
3/22/18 11:37 a.m.

In reply to Driven5 :

Rather than the overall home ownership rate, I'd like to see the home ownership by age bracket.  I see no problem with a low percentage of 20-30 year olds owning homes as they are just starting out on life, have had less time to save, set down roots and even want to buy.  What's more interesting to me is how home ownership looks for 50-60 year olds and especially the over 60 group.  If the % of those older age groups who own a house is dropping, then that's more of an issue for society.  If you're paying rent, which tends to be a larger % of your income over time compared to owning a house, then more people are likely to use their savings and need more assistance in the future.  If people own houses that tends to be a) a decreasing % of their income and b) give them an asset they can sell to pay for senior care.  Once that moneys all gone they turn to the government for housing and support.

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson MegaDork
3/22/18 11:40 a.m.
frenchyd said:

Why indeed? Aide for the poor is such a tiny fraction of the government spending compared to defense or corporate subsidies.   

The problem, and to me it's a massive problem, is that it's become a rallying point for a certain segment of the political spectrum to be able to 'point' a 'lazy freeloaders' as the root of our deficit spending.  They often do such a good job of that bait and switch (compared to tax cuts, corporate welfare etc.) that they've done of good job of persuading those who need those subsidies that they are bad and only used by the lazy.  

STM317
STM317 SuperDork
3/22/18 11:40 a.m.
alfadriver said:

But when you actually look at studies of happiness, it's very often the poor areas that are the happiest- which suggest they are not angry or jealous of anyone.

 I'm going to go ahead and question this. What makes you say this? Any evidence to support your claim? There's evidence to the contrary. Happiness increases with annual salary up to the ideal annual salary for happiness in the US of $105k. Beyond that, happiness doesn't really increase. In most of the US, that's not a poor person's income, and in fact would make a person pretty well off. Being poor increases stress about money, because money pays bills and puts food on the table. Rich people can certainly have financial stress too, but it's certainly different.

There's also a pretty strong correlation between average income for an area and crime rates in that same area. Happy people typically aren't committing crimes in their neighborhoods.

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson MegaDork
3/22/18 11:48 a.m.
STM317 said:
alfadriver said:

But when you actually look at studies of happiness, it's very often the poor areas that are the happiest- which suggest they are not angry or jealous of anyone.

 I'm going to go ahead and question this. What makes you say this? Any evidence to support your claim? There's evidence to the contrary. The ideal annual salary for happiness in the US is $105k. Beyond that, happiness doesn't really increase. In most of the US, that's not a poor person's income. Being poor increases stress about money, because money pays bills and puts food on the table. Rich people can certainly have financial stress too, but it's certainly different.

I tend to be much closer to Alfa's view on the world than STM's, but I have to admit what I've seen, read, heard over the years is much closer to STM's point in this case.  I've always seen $70-100K per year for a family uinit as the point where housing, food, clothes and basic necessities are all covered without serious stress.  From that point up happiness tends to be relatively constant.

Duke
Duke MegaDork
3/22/18 11:53 a.m.
alfadriver said:
Duke said:
alfadriver said:

Especially since anger over money is backwards of what you assume.  There's FAR FAR more angry people over welfare and helping the poor than wanting to tax the rich.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Then why do we have far more overwhelming news against programs for the poor vs the one supporting the rich?  Why is welfare and the ACA so hated, but we are ok with giving money to oil companies so that they can drill more oil?  

Crap, people voted against programs that HELP THEM because they are told that the programs are so bad for us. 

It would be great if you were right, but the news very much says the opposite.

And I disagree even moreso with this, to the point that I'm wondering if you live in the same version of reality that I do. 

1) We have one specific network, and its fervent disciples (some of whom are poor), full of "news" railing against programs supporting the poor and screaming about systemic abuses.

2) We have a whole bunch of networks, organized social media, and their fervent disciples (some of whom are poor), full of "news" totally in favor of programs supporting the poor, decrying the evil / hateful / stupid / greedy nature of those who oppose them, and screaming about a different set of systemic abuses.

In all sincerity, I utterly fail to see a "far more overwhelming" presence of type 1 above, than I do type 2.

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson MegaDork
3/22/18 12:05 p.m.

In reply to Duke :

Sorry I disagree.  If by one specific network you mean Fox, what about Info Wars, Blaze, Conservative tribune, the Federalist, Drudge report, American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the National review, hosts of right wing talk radio etc.  And the whole bunch of networks you allude to on the other side all still report on that same condemnation of those programs by both the Right wing politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists and the opposing press.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/22/18 12:09 p.m.
Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to Driven5 :

Rather than the overall home ownership rate, I'd like to see the home ownership by age bracket.  I see no problem with a low percentage of 20-30 year olds owning homes as they are just starting out on life, have had less time to save, set down roots and even want to buy.  What's more interesting to me is how home ownership looks for 50-60 year olds and especially the over 60 group.  If the % of those older age groups who own a house is dropping, then that's more of an issue for society.  If you're paying rent, which tends to be a larger % of your income over time compared to owning a house, then more people are likely to use their savings and need more assistance in the future.  If people own houses that tends to be a) a decreasing % of their income and b) give them an asset they can sell to pay for senior care.  Once that moneys all gone they turn to the government for housing and support.

While I applaud your focus on age, maybe it’s wrong?  Following WW2 the GI bill offered homes with nothing down.  Remarkably those Vets had a lower foreclosure rate than those who had the required down payment. 

That continued up through us Vietnam Vets. Lower foreclosure rate than those with down payments.  In the late 1990’s a zero down program began for every American. At first the rates followed the Vets history of low foreclosure. 

However the banks got clever and packaged all loans together, arranged for the rating services to falsify poor risks the same as good risks( proven income to make the payment and a good credit score)  and sold them. 

That’s when things got out of hand.  No Doc ( no documents) loans happened and suddenly everybody who could sign was granted a loan. 

Actual foreclosures would have been as previous. Except now banks were forced to foreclose on anyone late because the banks were at risk of failure. 

It was a banking problem caused by the banks greed.  Not the zero down 

Driven5
Driven5 SuperDork
3/22/18 12:12 p.m.
frenchyd said:

Can we both agree that the tax code is an unfair burden on those with a modest income?  The fact that most of the tax code helps the rich over working wage slaves?  

More specifically, I'd call it an unfairly light burden on those with a less-than-modest means, and that the burden of those with a modest income is largely being squandered. I believe most people of modest income that pay taxes would not consider their current burden (viewed in isolation from the burden of others) to be unfair, if in fact it was also actually being put to productive use with primarily tangible (and agreeable) benefits...But semantics aside, yes we're in general agreement on this basis of the discussion.

6 7 8 9 10

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
BkcuGKPgAxSaMcQIfRA454hgnxcLiuGyVQOcCeJuHlt7ShTzhKE2g9tONo1uGsS4