Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love LI But......Your absolutely right. Too many people today want to use their house as a bank instead of a home.
When we bought our 3 BR 1BA house in 1971 for $31,000, we lived in it and raised our family. 32 years later we sold it for $350,000 and were happy with that. Too many young people today want to start out with everything their parents worked all their life for.
And when you bought it in 1971, did you have to have 2 people working full time to afford it?
People born between 1940 and 1960 complaining about people having it easy are people with glass houses throwing stones. My dad was able to afford a small house, then put an addition on to make if 4 bedrooms, all without a college degree, and my mom never worked more than part time at any time while my siblings and I were growing up.
Now, my wife and I make close to twice the median family income on LI, minus arout $10K per year for child care, and we both work full time, and can basically afford the same place you could, although with probably less disposable income because taxes are so high. It's all about the transfer of wealth upwards in our society these 2 family incomes, but I digress.
There's a reason young people complain about affording LI..because they can't afford it!! I'm sure that there are some brats that expect a 4 bedroom 2 bath 2200 sq foot house the minute they get married, but that's not the norm. People would like to be able to afford maybe a small house when they get married, and have some disposable income. Looking at the median incomes on LI, most can't.
Right on, dman!!! Looking for a starter home here, not a McMansion! I'd be more than happy with 1200 SF.
I think some of these folks grew up hearing their parents talk about the depression and walking uphill both ways to school, so they feel compelled to talk the same way....
...these type of anecdotes ring very hollow coming from them, who have seen the highest standard of living in the history of the US during their prime years. Everybody avoids the 2 income household thing, and likes to think people do it out of desire to have things...
....this isn't the case on LI. People do it to survive.
The person sold their house for 10 times what they paid for it...when do you think anyone on LI will be able to do that again?
"Boomerangst” is often applied with tongue-in-cheek to the angst and insecurity felt by middle-age baby-boomers as they march in legions towards retirement — but the term can also apply to their descendants.
Although it is widely believed that younger people regard as necessities things that their parents see as luxuries or options, it is undoubtedly true that they face a far more financially challenging environment than their parents did.
The baby-boomers in the West grew up in the aftermath of the Second World War and under the shadow of the Cold War but in a world they could confidently believe belonged to them. It was theirs to influence and change.
As they did so, they accumulated wealth and economic privilege on an unprecedented scale, a process their children and grandchildren may not be able to replicate.
In "The Future of US Affluence" (The Future of U.S. Affluence by Robert J. Samuelson - The Globalist) Robert J. Samuelson considers those on Social Security and Medicare today as being denizens of an unfair welfare state eating the young because when Social Security and Medicare were created they were only supposed to help ease poverty, not become a "gimme." Here are some quotes from his interview:
What was the reasoning behind the welfare state when it was created decades ago?
"When the U.S. Congress enacted Social Security and Medicare in 1935 and 1965, respectively, many older Americans were poorer than the rest of the population.
In the Great Depression, from 30% to 50% of the 65-and-over populations was thrown onto the mercy of children, relatives and friends for food, shelter and care.
"Social Security and Medicare have moved beyond their original purpose of protecting people from destitution and have become retirement subsidies — welfare payments to enable people to enjoy their 'golden years.'"
Is there anything wrong with wanting to live well in your "golden years"?
"The welfare state has in part created a reverse Robin Hood effect: It sometimes transfers income from the struggling young to the relaxed old. Even if this did not threaten economic growth, it would pose a moral issue: Is it fair?"
*******************
Older people can be very cruel to the younger generations trying to start a life for themselves, all the while benefitting off their misery (high home prices, high taxes). I think it is the baby boomers who were "spoiled" by favorable living conditions, not Gen X and beyond ...
Why dont the schools insist on a $25 per kid registration.
Which brings up a good point I've often wondered about: Why NOT have some kind of direct-payment assessment PER ACTIVE STUDENT to help defray operating costs? Why NOT have active fundraising in public schools, the same way all private schools do? Is there some unwritten law that says every penny spent in connection with the school system must come out of the entire taxpaying-homeowner pool?
Look at it this way: A teacher who does any type of non-regular-class activity (afterschool club, sports team, band, chorus, whatever) gets paid extra for that in addition to her salary. That salary in turn is subsidized by the entire district's taxpayers even though only a small discrete/select group of kids is benefitting by that extra activity. Why not have the households of the kids who are selectively benefitting from that teacher's extracurricular activity pay toward the cost of the specific activity's existence?
Back in the days when TaxPAC organizations would research and publish the salaries of teachers in pre-budget-vote weeks, it was astounding to see the difference between some teachers' base pay and the actual total (the difference being the amount shown as earned for "non-classroom activities"). Many times it came to an additional 30%-50% over base.
IMO the teachers should pay more toward the cost of their health insurance plans than they currently do. Districts always cite that as the major cause of yearly increases but fail to disclose how much of the cost of premiums is borne by the teachers themselves vs how much by the district.
[quote=totallyfrazzled;7348291]Which brings up a good point I've often wondered about: Why NOT have some kind of direct-payment assessment PER ACTIVE STUDENT to help defray operating costs? Why NOT have active fundraising in public schools, the same way all private schools do? Is there some unwritten law that says every penny spent in connection with the school system must come out of the entire taxpaying-homeowner pool? quote]
I agree here with a few "buts"
Most PTA organizations do have some kind regular fundraising events.Where the money goes, I have no clue. Alright, a little clue, much of these fundraisers go to extra-curricular activities and such.
I suppose this kind of thing would vary from school to school.
The other "but" is that fundraising is notoriously hit or miss. You can't depend on a certain bottom line. Sometimes you hit a home run, sometimes you're out at first. So in theory, I think a fundraising program would be great if used to offset certain costs which now come out of tax money, but in reality it just isn't too, well, uh realistic.
I would take the school funding issue a little further. I believe that schools should all be funded at the state level through either an income tax or sales tax. Each school district should be allotted a set amount per pupil and have to live within that.
I'm all for an income based school tax plan. You pay what you can afford. It will all end up being the same amount of money towards the schools anyway. It would just be a little more fair.
I'm all for an income based school tax plan. You pay what you can afford. It will all end up being the same amount of money towards the schools anyway. It would just be a little more fair.
I agree. Let's say that on "Maple Street" there are two identical colonials (same age, same model, same amenities, same size lot, etc etc.. . it's your classic LI cooky cutter subdivision, LOL).
The white Colonial is owned by Mr & Mrs Smith. Mr Smith works as a lawyer in the city making 150K/yr. Mrs Smith works for a small local company and makes 50K/yr. So between them they make 200K. The school tax portion of their property tax bill is $8000.
The red Colonial is owned by Ms Jones who is in her late 40s and works as an office manager for a LI company. She makes about 70K/year. The school tax portion of her property tax bill is also $8000.
An income based system would definitely be far more fair to Ms Jones than the way things are done now!
"Boomerangst” is often applied with tongue-in-cheek to the angst and insecurity felt by middle-age baby-boomers as they march in legions towards retirement — but the term can also apply to their descendants.
Although it is widely believed that younger people regard as necessities things that their parents see as luxuries or options, it is undoubtedly true that they face a far more financially challenging environment than their parents did.
The baby-boomers in the West grew up in the aftermath of the Second World War and under the shadow of the Cold War but in a world they could confidently believe belonged to them. It was theirs to influence and change.
As they did so, they accumulated wealth and economic privilege on an unprecedented scale, a process their children and grandchildren may not be able to replicate.
In "The Future of US Affluence" (The Future of U.S. Affluence by Robert J. Samuelson - The Globalist) Robert J. Samuelson considers those on Social Security and Medicare today as being denizens of an unfair welfare state eating the young because when Social Security and Medicare were created they were only supposed to help ease poverty, not become a "gimme." Here are some quotes from his interview:
What was the reasoning behind the welfare state when it was created decades ago?
"When the U.S. Congress enacted Social Security and Medicare in 1935 and 1965, respectively, many older Americans were poorer than the rest of the population.
In the Great Depression, from 30% to 50% of the 65-and-over populations was thrown onto the mercy of children, relatives and friends for food, shelter and care.
"Social Security and Medicare have moved beyond their original purpose of protecting people from destitution and have become retirement subsidies — welfare payments to enable people to enjoy their 'golden years.'"
Is there anything wrong with wanting to live well in your "golden years"?
"The welfare state has in part created a reverse Robin Hood effect: It sometimes transfers income from the struggling young to the relaxed old. Even if this did not threaten economic growth, it would pose a moral issue: Is it fair?"
*******************
Older people can be very cruel to the younger generations trying to start a life for themselves, all the while benefitting off their misery (high home prices, high taxes). I think it is the baby boomers who were "spoiled" by favorable living conditions, not Gen X and beyond ...
seriously, the thought that my parents will soon be receiving social security checks that I'M in effect going to be paying is enough to make me want to throw my hands up in defeat. I can't afford 1 decent house, they comfortably have 2...and THEY'RE gonna be getting extra cash soon?!?!?!? I mean, it's a friggin joke. it's not like they don't have 401Ks and liquid assets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Boomerangst" Generation ...
