Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2018, 01:03 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,639,632 times
Reputation: 12523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Well that was my point . When someone is short money like you describe, selling the house and downsizing or moving to a cheaper area is the answer . Draining the equity from the home , and having rising expenses is a recipe for a disaster .

That person you described is likely postponing the inevitable and making a bad mistake with that loan.. they will lose the option to sell and be able to downsize.

Let this sink in , it is the number one issue with reverse mortgages
It might be the best answer if money is the only consideration, but some people prefer to stay where their families and friends are.

 
Old 11-10-2018, 01:05 PM
 
7,899 posts, read 7,113,478 times
Reputation: 18603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie View Post
....
..A homemaker’s (remember when people had homes instead of houses?) job was a 24/7 endeavour, as it still is today, and I can’t think of a more important role in any culture you care to name. ................

ll.
I can. In fact it is easy to see the world is suffering from the global population boom. The last thing needed are more high count breeders.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 01:13 PM
 
106,691 posts, read 108,856,202 times
Reputation: 80169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
It might be the best answer if money is the only consideration, but some people prefer to stay where their families and friends are.
They can do that but they are likely better off downsizing in that area . This is a story that repeats over and over .

When someone is so low on funds to require preselling the house it rarely ends well . Over the years the bills only get bigger and bigger and expenses rise and they drained the house equity only to not be able to afford the house anyway only now they have nothing to sell.

It is going to be individual dependent but anyone that desperate for more money is likely going to make a bad mistake
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:00 PM
 
31,910 posts, read 26,989,302 times
Reputation: 24816
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
They can do that but they are likely better off downsizing in that area . This is a story that repeats over and over .

When someone is so low on funds to require preselling the house it rarely ends well . Over the years the bills only get bigger and bigger and expenses rise and they drained the house equity only to not be able to afford the house anyway only now they have nothing to sell.

It is going to be individual dependent but anyone that desperate for more money is likely going to make a bad mistake

You always bust out with that advice, and it just isn't a one size fits all solution.


First and foremost it assumes persons can sell their home *and* pocket a nice bit of change afterwards after any taxes, mortgage or whatever.


Two, in many areas of the country (including New York) just what are people supposed to "down size" into? Yeah you *might* get $250k to $300k for the average home out in one of the boroughs, but where are you going to find a condo or whatever for same (or hopefully lower) price? It won't likely be in same area.


Three people have and or need their support system; family, friends and so forth, especially as they get older. Packing up and moving often causes isolation. So either the family moves with you, or you're stuck out in some place new on your own.


Finally there is the fact you can only shoot that wad (selling a home) once, and reap huge or decent profits. Selling a home you bought twenty, thirty or more years ago should and likely will bring in a higher ROI than something just bought a few years ago. So if you buy a new condo or whatever at 65-70, you'll likely to be lucky (or rather your estate once you die) to get back what was paid.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:02 PM
 
50,809 posts, read 36,501,346 times
Reputation: 76608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie View Post
I’m a firm believer in love, faith, and family, and I mind the derogatory comments about people who ‘Had too many kids.’

Having sufficient funds to raise decent human beings has little to do with finding oneself old, alone, and ‘poor.’ Who could have predicted, fifty years ago, the radical shift in societal values that has become our reality today?

Not too long ago, multigenerational families were the norm, and there was no need to save for retirement because one’s investment was in one’s family, both children and aging parents, although I don’t know of anyone in my generation who attached a dollar value to *any* family member.

Mothers who stayed home to raise (and often homeschool) their children are hardly deserving of any kind of disparagement. A homemaker’s (remember when people had homes instead of houses?) job was a 24/7 endeavour, as it still is today, and I can’t think of a more important role in any culture you care to name.

Many mothers also took in children whose mothers, for whatever reason, needed or wanted to work, thus adding to the family’s income, and many ran home-based businesses of other kinds, and some worked alongside their husbands on the family farm or homestead. Not too many took vacations, and I knew of none who wee jet setters.

Grandma and grandpa worked alongside their grown children, teaching, dispensing sage advice and wisdom, and serving as welcome extra hands where the children were concerned. Older grandparents always had time, available laps, hugs and kisses, stories to tell, and most importantly they had love, enriching the lives of their grandchildren beyond measure. We don’t see much of that today.

The word ‘latchkey’ is actually in the dictionary, describing kids who come home from school to a house (not a home) with no one there, and no one to care, and we wonder why young people today are focused on money, material possessions, and not family. Many of those kids were farmed out to day care centres at two months old! This is the reason why they have no sense of family, roots, or obligation to parents, and it’s hard to blame them, but a byproduct of our disgraceful societal changes is ‘poor’ old people who’ve been caught in the crossfire, and now have nowhere to go.

I know a number of these bewildered grandparents who live in RVs, vans, or cars, and most of them plan to take their own lives when they can no longer care for themselves, rather than die in an institution somewhere. This does *not* speak well of who we have become. From unwanted (usually aborted) babies to neglected and abandoned parents, this is what we’ve become. May God forgive us!

There is no excuse for any parent who worked hard, loved, and properly raised their children to be ‘poor’ and struggling as their lives draw to a close.

There can be no true wealth without family. Money is just paper, after all.

Love and All Good Things,

Mahrie.
P.S. We had nine (home educated) children, and currently have six grandchildren, and we raised them all to value love, faith, and family. Sadly, only one still does. The others have succumbed to the *new* value system, which has no value at all.
Even worse than the children who won’t take care of their parents, are the children who don’t want to take care of their parents but do because they want the Social Security check. I work a nursing home rehab and it is not at all uncommon to have situations where adult kids are dependent on the parents home and income. Often patients are barely cared for, left in bed alone when they can’t even get to a commode by themselves, let alone escape a fire. Sometimes they are confined to a room alone on a different floor and not included in their day-to-day family life. Usually things that don’t meet any kind of legal definition of abused but certainly border on it. so at least to me. Sometimes we get patients who not only need long-term care, but actually want to stay in our facility, however the child, who is usually power of attorney, won’t sign the Medicaid paperwork.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Texas
13,480 posts, read 8,385,679 times
Reputation: 25948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie View Post
Many mothers also took in children whose mothers, for whatever reason, needed or wanted to work, thus adding to the family’s income, and many ran home-based businesses of other kinds, and some worked alongside their husbands on the family farm or homestead. Not too many took vacations, and I knew of none who wee jet setters.l.
I am a sahm and I won't "take in" children of working mothers and care for them while the moms go to work. That's not my purpose in life. I stay home to care for my own family and I don't care how selfish some think that is. I'm not a free babysitter just because I stay home with my kids. Even women in my mother's generation didn't give free childcare every day to other parents. I'm not familiar with this as a common practice at all.

It's not acceptable to think that one can drop off their child at a sahm's house and get free childcare or drop off an elderly parent to get free elder care. It's disrespectful and rude to assume a stay at home mother should just give free caregiving services. Women are not doormats.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:48 PM
 
106,691 posts, read 108,856,202 times
Reputation: 80169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
You always bust out with that advice, and it just isn't a one size fits all solution.


First and foremost it assumes persons can sell their home *and* pocket a nice bit of change afterwards after any taxes, mortgage or whatever.


Two, in many areas of the country (including New York) just what are people supposed to "down size" into? Yeah you *might* get $250k to $300k for the average home out in one of the boroughs, but where are you going to find a condo or whatever for same (or hopefully lower) price? It won't likely be in same area.


Three people have and or need their support system; family, friends and so forth, especially as they get older. Packing up and moving often causes isolation. So either the family moves with you, or you're stuck out in some place new on your own.

But running out of money and losing the house or failing to pay your bills ends up being the alternative regardless


Finally there is the fact you can only shoot that wad (selling a home) once, and reap huge or decent profits. Selling a home you bought twenty, thirty or more years ago should and likely will bring in a higher ROI than something just bought a few years ago. So if you buy a new condo or whatever at 65-70, you'll likely to be lucky (or rather your estate once you die) to get back what was paid.
A one size fits all ? I never said that .
If someone is taking a reverse mortgage they have to have sizable equity in order to qualify .

How they live or where else they go is up to them . I can’t tell them how to back in to a life they can afford. Maybe it is living golden girl style . It is not for me to to figure out.

You are also wrong about being only allowed to sell the house once . You can repeat every two years and get the tax free exclusion if you have appreciation.

Many seniors run in to the reverse situation . They live away from family and take reverse mortgages and then need some assistance or want to move closer to family .

When we had the house in pa our neighbor was forced to relocate when she could not drive anymore and we had no public transportation in the area at all . So stuff happens and many times it happens to those who will depend on that home equity to do what they have to do

Last edited by mathjak107; 11-10-2018 at 03:33 PM..
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:51 PM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,763,707 times
Reputation: 16993
Maybe you should read careful, there is a part “adding to family’s income”. Nobody expects free childcare from anybody. When I did use childcare person in my neighborhood, it’s always paid for. Don’t get outrage over nothing. Get better glasses for reading. Maybe I can sense the seething or mommy’s war brewing.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 02:56 PM
 
4,150 posts, read 3,906,215 times
Reputation: 10943
The problem with selling a home and moving to cheapsville is there are less and less places where things are cheap anymore. Some houses in other areas sure look reasonable until you look at how much work they need.
 
Old 11-10-2018, 03:07 PM
 
7,899 posts, read 7,113,478 times
Reputation: 18603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
The problem with selling a home and moving to cheapsville is there are less and less places where things are cheap anymore. Some houses in other areas sure look reasonable until you look at how much work they need.
Wrong! I have been traveling the country for months. I know a great many areas where houses and COL are cheap, mainly because the jobs are gone. Many of those places are great for retirees with little money.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top