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.
Owning assets absolves a person from any necessity to be or act smart, and enables landlords to build wealth on the backs of others unable to retain their own wealth.
Excuse me? You can't be serious. In order to run a successful business, you had better act smart. Here's the rub; what's smart for a landlord may not seem smart to a tenant.
As to second part of your statement, there's nothing inherently wrong with building wealth off the backs of those unable to retain their own wealth. Whose fault is it that they are unable to save and invest their assets? Certainly not the landlord's fault. That blame lies squarely on the individual who is financially irresponsible. There's a reason "rent to own" businesses flourish in poor areas.
I was running some reports, I am a numbers guy and have every single expense dating back to 2006 recorded in Quicken But it's astonishing how much I have spent... here are some gems:
Average monthly over the last 65 months:
Eating out - $602
Groceries - $156
Vacations - $658
Rent - $1176
Motorcycles - $354
Fuel - $130
Entertainment - $56
Autos (including fuel, service etc.) - $347
Total average monthly expenditure - $3,918
Total average monthly net income - $6,672
Average savings rate: 41%
I still managed to save 41% of my income monthly which I think is OK, but could've done better. I think my expenditures are crazy, $750/mo. on Food? WTF? That is insane. I just eat out too much and spend a lot on alcohol (2-3 beers/day add up)
So, my case in point - I think I spend quite a bit but I still have a good buffer and no debt... I know people don't spend as much eating out, never take any vacations and have no hobbies, are DUAL income and yet are living paycheck to paycheck. What are they doing with their money?
Total Monthly Income 1900+2200= $4100 -double income.
Total approx spent= $3897
Family of Four; Minus any other add-ons throughout the month!! This is couponing, basic cable, 1 car family with two Full Time Jobs both above min. wage.
A lot of people talk about homelessness as an affordable housing problem. To a small degree, that's true. I am certainly a big advocate of building more housing--period. Anything we can do to increase the supply will help keep a lid on costs. But we're kidding ourselves if we think affordable housing, all by itself, is going to fix the underlying issues (lack of job skills, criminal backgrounds, mental illness, drug addiction) of most homeless people. At the margins, it would help the more functional set of homeless people, but in no way would it do anything for the chronically homeless.
Plus, a city like SF or NYC is always going to be very expensive because space is very much as a premium. There is really nowhere to build more housing.
I don't understand the issue about landlords. People who can't afford to buy don't realize that it's a good thing that other people invest in real estate. Just think, if they didn't invest, the people who can't afford to buy a house would have to choose between living on the streets or in government run housing.
The result is, people who can't buy have a place to live and if it's a good investment the investor is profiting. Both the renter and the investor are served.
It states savings goals -
- By age 30: Have the equivalent of your annual salary saved
- By age 35: Have twice your annual salary saved.
- By age 40: Have three times your annual salary saved.
- By age 45: Have four times your annual salary saved.
- By age 50: Have five times your annual salary saved.
- By age 55: Have six times your annual salary saved.
- By age 60: Have seven times your annual salary saved.
- By age 65: Have eight times your annual salary saved.
How do you think America is stacking up to these goals? Per this thread I am in much better financial shape than average and some even said I was showing off, per this CNBC article I am way under the required goals...I think there is quite a disconnect here between the reality on the ground and what financial pundits are professing as "normal".
It states savings goals -
- By age 30: Have the equivalent of your annual salary saved
- By age 35: Have twice your annual salary saved.
- By age 40: Have three times your annual salary saved.
- By age 45: Have four times your annual salary saved.
- By age 50: Have five times your annual salary saved.
- By age 55: Have six times your annual salary saved.
- By age 60: Have seven times your annual salary saved.
- By age 65: Have eight times your annual salary saved.
How do you think America is stacking up to these goals? Per this thread I am in much better financial shape than average and some even said I was showing off, per this CNBC article I am way under the required goals...I think there is quite a disconnect here between the reality on the ground and what financial pundits are professing as "normal".
and all of those articles fail to "begin" before adult age...
it's like telling the titanic they should have avoided the iceberg after they hit it
they should have by age 10: have a bank account, by age 15: have a paycheck (that isn't an allowance) and learning how to budget that paycheck, by age 20: opening an IRA/investment account
it's dumb to expect people to "save" money if they don't know how to "save"
being successful at life isn't all that complicated
1) stay groomed
2) don't do drugs/get arrested
3) pay your bills
4) don't buy crap you can't afford
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.