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.
Here's the thing: if you moved into my neighborhood, you'd complain that life revolves around kids, that you're bored, and that you have to drive into the city to find something to do. Nobody is stopping you from buying here. In fact, four of my immediate neighbors are singles living in houses the same size as mine or even larger.
Here's the thing: if you moved into my neighborhood, you'd complain that life revolves around kids, that you're bored, and that you have to drive into the city to find something to do.
You don't have to be a parent yourself to enjoy being around kids, though...
Umm, I never said most did. I said the poster's situation wasn't unique, nor unusual. Lots of singles do own homes, regardless of how many don't. The stats absolutely make my point.
Let's try again.
How many do you consider "lots" or "many"? And are these absolutely figures or in comparison to other figures?
For example, you can say 2 billionaires is many. But of a population of 6 billion, 2 may not be many.
If you use the first definition of "many", sure, there are many single women that own houses. But that doesn't really mean anything.
If you use the second definition of "many", you need to show that a significant percentage of single women own homes, something you have so far failed to do.
What you showed is: a significant percentage of homeowners are single women.
What you needed to show is: a significant percentage of single women own homes.
Do you see the difference? If not, let me know and I may be able to explain it to you.
I've always been very against car debt, but we recently needed a new car, and had to finance it because we had planned to keep our old car for another 5-10 years and were paying $85 a day for a rental. The safety and fuel economy stats were drastically different even over one year's models, and since we'll be driving the car for 20 years, even a small improvement will be useful. But the deciding factor was that a one year old car had a 3-5% interest rate, the new car had no interest. Dave Ramsay would have a cow because we're in debt, but mathematically, there is no difference between putting $300 in a savings account or putting it into the car loan. And when you add in the 5mpg better mileage on this car than the previous model we're ahead. The listed prices for this car (and a couple of other cars) at 2-3 years old were the same as what we paid/were quoted new, so depreciation was minimal (counter to evything I've ever read)
I've actually enjoyed the new car experience so much that I might sell it on and buy another in only 5-10 years, if technology has continued to improve.
this is exactly right. and if you happen to have the total amount in your savings already, you're actually reducing the amount you pay due to time value of money by taking the 0% auto loan. So the car will be cheaper than if you simply paid $20,000 cash today vs. $300/month at 0%.
this is exactly right. and if you happen to have the total amount in your savings already, you're actually reducing the amount you pay due to time value of money by taking the 0% auto loan. So the car will be cheaper than if you simply paid $20,000 cash today vs. $300/month at 0%.
Technically, yes. But if the interest rates influence one's buying decision towards buying new, it is no longer costless financing since you have only gotten out of paying interest by agreeing to take on more depreciation (in effect.) As a result, you are still spending more money. The only exception is if you can positively swear that there was zero chance that financing had any effect at all on your decision to buy new, which is to say, if you would've bought new even if you had to pay cash.
If you cannot honestly say this, then the financing did (indirectly) cost you money!
Does it ever occur to you that people need dogmas more than they need advice? There is no lack of advice already floating around. But the availability of advice doesn't induce action. You'd need a more powerful force, of which a dogma is a great example. And this is why religion exists and is still so powerful.
Exactly humans created religion for that very purpose, but Dave Ramsey is not a religious figure, he is trying to sell it as financial advice. Religious people have their religious institutions and their own dogma, and also leadership to help interpret the dogma if necessary. A lot of religious dogma deals with financial aspects of life as well, certain religions even go so far as to forbid credit.
Why should religious people follow Dave Ramsey's dogma instead of figuring out what their religious dogma says about their issues?
Why would non-religious people follow anyone's dogma to begin with?
I would imagine if someone is seeking or needs dogma, then why not follow a religion? Ultimately it (Dave Ramsey's show, writings, etc) seems like unhelpful advice.
Exactly humans created religion for that very purpose, but Dave Ramsey is not a religious figure, he is trying to sell it as financial advice. Religious people have their religious institutions and their own dogma, and also leadership to help interpret the dogma if necessary. A lot of religious dogma deals with financial aspects of life as well, certain religions even go so far as to forbid credit.
Why should religious people follow Dave Ramsey's dogma instead of figuring out what their religious dogma says about their issues?
Why would non-religious people follow anyone's dogma to begin with?
I would imagine if someone is seeking or needs dogma, then why not follow a religion? Ultimately it (Dave Ramsey's show, writings, etc) seems like unhelpful advice.
Tell me a religion that teaches you personal finance with as much fire and strength as Dave Ramsey does.
Yepper. See below. Ol' freemkt is complaining because he thinks the only way singles can afford SFD is by having roommates, and that zoning doesn't allow that.
What else do you call the unrelated occupancy restrictions and inferior siting of non-SFR which relegate singles to inferior locations, which often include disamenities such as poor air quality??
I see stay-at-home moms risin'
I see trouble on the way
Or was that a bad moon risin'?
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.
