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.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,742 posts, read 58,090,525 times
Reputation: 46231
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Well to be fair in order to get all of your travel covered by rewards means you spend a lot on those cards or you churn your cards. We spend as much as we can on our cards, but it wouldn't pay for much more than travel once a year for 2 adults, because we just don't actually spend a lot outside of our mortgage and our daycare costs, which both have to be from your bank account.
Or you get a traveling job that allows you to accumulate points. Btdt for 40 yrs on company dime. Also built many houses and managed commercial RE using point cards. Plus 'game-the-cards' as Points Guy does.
Or you get a traveling job that allows you to accumulate points. Btdt for 40 yrs on company dime. Also built many houses and managed commercial RE using point cards. Plus 'game-the-cards' as Points Guy does.
Options exist, as do a lot of hidden perks.
Oh my, I know someone who pays his mortgage with his credit card for points and them does a balance transfer to another credit card for more points.
So..would you say that someone living with a roommate or spouse that pays all of their own expenses with an individual income of roughly $45-50k/yr in a low cost of living area is living a Spartan lifestyle? If you double that (assuming the partner makes the same) you're looking at a DINK household income of ~$100k/yr in a low cost of living area...sure seems Spartan to me.....
You do realize I called myself a Spartan and minimalist as well in the same post right? So if I'm making fun of Eddie I'm making fun of myself right?
Some people lead very simple lives. It's easy to save and watch your money grow when life is uncomplicated. I just don't think people should be bragging to other people that it's easy to do when everyone leads different lives and lives in different COL.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,576,900 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1
Yeah, I live in CA, have 2 Porsches, free medical and discounted utilities. I think it’s ridiculous too. But I didn’t vote for the people who set up these laws, so I have no problem taking advantage of their stupid policies. Two can play at this game.
And let’s talk about real estate investing. I wish I had the cajones for it, but I don’t.
That’s an “unfair” game too..... because investors don’t have to pay a premium for buying real estate , at least here in CA (ie, no residential exemptions on property tax) , prices have been unrealistically inflated by investors so that the middle class person cannot afford an entry level home. Do you feel bad about that? Or do you feel that these investors are merely taking advantage of govt policy?
There's what's allowable by law and there's what's morally right.
As I said, your's is a different situation than the OP. You put money into the system for quite a while and now you are getting money out of the system. Close enough.
The OP on the other hand is drawing money out without having put anything in.
You also don't flaunt your situation and brag about superior saavy or being a .00001 like the OP does.
Now about real estate. How does this even compare?
In the situation of the op he is taking something for free. In buying real estate you are buying what's available.
Do you think someone who buys food for a restaurant to make a profit is cheating the system because they are not paying more than the average Joe? Do you think it's unfair so that laws should be enacted to make them pay more?
In real estate for investors you are dealing with homes for sale and that is not something given for free unlike the health care given to the OP for free. If you think that investors are bad and have an unfair edge, you should educate yourself a bit more about it. Maybe you would get cajones if you were fully knowledgeable about real estate instead of making statements based on what you know now.
You think that investors should pay more by way of government laws when they buy?
Investors aren’t treated the same as homeowners. They aren’t supported by the government like the op is with the benefits, so why would anyone think it’s unfair? Investors do have disadvantages compared to home buyers. Interests rates are higher when they buy. They also have to put down 20 percent instead of 3 or 5 percent, in some cases nothing. There's financial programs for homeowners to buy for les than what and investor would have to pay.
In some areas their taxes are higher because it is a rental. In some cases insurance is also higher. There are also fees involved for owning a rental that homeowners don’t pay simply because it is a rental and not owner occupied. Investors also can’t buy any house they want, government blocks them. Go to the hud site and look at homes and see how homes can only be bought by owners and not investors.
You think investors as solely driving up prices, this is not the case. The cause is demand, that's what drives prices up. If there's more buyers because investors are in the pool with prospective home owners, then it can be affected. But in the Bay Area most people shopping for homes aren't investors, the numbers just aren't that strong to make sense as an investment. Investors need to make money and usually get outbid by homeowners outbiding each other who want the house to live in. Investors usually drop out early. That's why I pulled out of Ca real estate
Prices got competitive when Chinese money came and wanted to park their money outside of China. That stopped and prices are still high because of demand from home buyers-not investors.
Now let's say you get you way and the government says no fair to home buyers, let's make the costs really high for investors. So now there's fewer rentals or no rentals. That means a lot of people can’t live in areas because even if home prices went down, they can’t afford it.
The few investor homes would have sky high rents because there is no competition. Now more people want to buy or have no choice because the can't find a rental.
That means no renters, no workers at many businesses to serve you.
My former homes in Pleasanton are worth about a million. If they dropped in half the renters I had still couldn’t afford to buy which means they couldn’t even live in the area.
As far as charging a premium for investors, has this ever been brought up? If you think it’s unfair have you brought it up? Or do you just sit quietly and blame investors for making real estate go up while you quietly enjoy your increased wealth with your own home? I’m pretty sure you’re not complaining how much your house has gone up now that you’ve got yours. But of course it’s nice to look pc by blaming the evil investors.
If you think that having more cheaper houses will make more people home owners, that isn't always the case. In my area of rentals houses could be bought for as low as 30K when I bought. Rents were $900 a month for a house like that. I couldn't figure out who would pay rent instead of buying. Some of the deals I got I had to wait because the government set it up so only homeowners could buy for the first 30 days. So see it isn't a level playing field to buy investor property. But often the 30 days would go buy and no home owner would buy it so I got it. Investors weren't forcing prices up at all. There was plenty of affordable houses.
No here's the kicker. I have some rentals I’m losing a few tenants with because they are being given financial aid by the government to help them buy with no skin in the game. The increased demand by home buyers with financial help from the government now has driven prices up-not investors. Not to many investors because of high prices. I'm not buying because the high prices don't make sense for a return.
Isn't the 4% 'guideline' only for a 30 year retirement horizon?
Correct. The safe withdrawal rate for "perpetual" retirement is reputedly around 3.5%; less, if we're maladroit investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
...Assuming this guy can keep his taxable income low like with Municiple bond investments etc. they are "poor" and thus would get virtually free healthcare courtesy of Obamacare which doesn't have an assets test so scratch that issue. ...
Not quite. Obamacare counts “modified adjusted gross income”, which includes tax-exempt interest. So, there might be no federal income tax on the subject investment, but the interest counts towards the $48K cap (or whatever it is now) for a single-person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman
...Some people do next to nothing with their lives ...
... and live the blissful liberty of thought, where striving, burdens and consumption sum to naught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
...My desire is to live “America-middle-class” with complete ownership of my time and thoughts....
One wonders, to what extent these are compatible goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
... how does one go on "about" 3 cruises? Does that mean somewhere between 2-4 but you can't remember exactly?...
One of them concluded early, due to an E. Coli outbreak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
...my mind is in a different place since I’ve had so much time to be inside it thinking.
Politeness, perhaps, prevents overt mention of this particular place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
How is $25-30k/yr for one person with no car payment and no mortgage a Spartan lifestyle? Why do people keep saying this? ...
Spartans needed to buy, house and clothe the Helots in their employ, while they themselves would go on campaign. And do you really think that Leonidas and friends, cooked their own grub? The folks who catered the event at Thermopylae – who paid them? Who covered their workers’ comp? And don’t forget budgeting for loincloths, cloaks, spears and helmets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
Lots of thoughtful writers and philosophers work traditional jobs and still have time for great thoughts.
Indeed. Boethius wrote his masterpiece in prison (not a downtown highrise cube-farm, but a real prison). Epictetus was a slave, presumably with more onerous tasks, than sighs and scribbles in a writer’s nook. Marcus Aurelius was an emperor. George Berkeley was a bishop, and Francis Bacon was a knight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
when you tell the truth you don't need a good memory. the pieces all fit together nicely and are coherent ...
What if there's an alternative truth - or several?
A 35 year old today, considering themselves only, you'll need 2.2 to 2.8 million accumulated (in assets, investments, money, pension, trust fund/inheritance), and maintain a FICO >800) to be able to retire before 65 or so. This is a minimum amount for living above trailer park level, and being relatively immune to unexpected mega-debts.
Just for comparison, a 35 year old in 1985 to do the same thing, needed $1,250,000. A 35 year old in 1965 only needed $200,000. Yes, COL has increased non-linearly.
This assumes that political things remain as is; and real estate maintains its appreciation as it has for 70 years and from place to place remains stable, and medical or food, HOA's, possibly, taxes, and, of course, services do not escalate in price faster than they have in recent years. These are things you keep an eye on in the meantime, and you adjust for accordingly.
That's about as accurate as one could be, considering we are talking about retiring in 2050, and remembering that 85% of people, planning to retire at 65, unfortunately, underestimated.
If you were to retire completely at 35 today, those figures increase approximately 1.75 X, assuming you expect normal longevity and assume a "retired" standard of living. It is slightly cheaper to live retired as opposed to intra-career costs, all considered.
Last edited by TwinbrookNine; 12-06-2019 at 04:02 PM..
There's what's allowable by law and there's what's morally right.
As I said, your's is a different situation than the OP. You put money into the system for quite a while and now you are getting money out of the system. Close enough.
The OP on the other hand is drawing money out without having put anything in.
You also don't flaunt your situation and brag about superior saavy or being a .00001 like the OP does.
Now about real estate. How does this even compare?
In the situation of the op he is taking something for free. In buying real estate you are buying what's available.
Do you think someone who buys food for a restaurant to make a profit is cheating the system because they are not paying more than the average Joe? Do you think it's unfair so that laws should be enacted to make them pay more?
In real estate for investors you are dealing with homes for sale and that is not something given for free unlike the health care given to the OP for free. If you think that investors are bad and have an unfair edge, you should educate yourself a bit more about it. Maybe you would get cajones if you were fully knowledgeable about real estate instead of making statements based on what you know now.
You think that investors should pay more by way of government laws when they buy?
Investors aren’t treated the same as homeowners. They aren’t supported by the government like the op is with the benefits, so why would anyone think it’s unfair? Investors do have disadvantages compared to home buyers. Interests rates are higher when they buy. They also have to put down 20 percent instead of 3 or 5 percent, in some cases nothing. There's financial programs for homeowners to buy for les than what and investor would have to pay.
In some areas their taxes are higher because it is a rental. In some cases insurance is also higher. There are also fees involved for owning a rental that homeowners don’t pay simply because it is a rental and not owner occupied. Investors also can’t buy any house they want, government blocks them. Go to the hud site and look at homes and see how homes can only be bought by owners and not investors.
You think investors as solely driving up prices, this is not the case. The cause is demand, that's what drives prices up. If there's more buyers because investors are in the pool with prospective home owners, then it can be affected. But in the Bay Area most people shopping for homes aren't investors, the numbers just aren't that strong to make sense as an investment. Investors need to make money and usually get outbid by homeowners outbiding each other who want the house to live in. Investors usually drop out early. That's why I pulled out of Ca real estate
Prices got competitive when Chinese money came and wanted to park their money outside of China. That stopped and prices are still high because of demand from home buyers-not investors.
Now let's say you get you way and the government says no fair to home buyers, let's make the costs really high for investors. So now there's fewer rentals or no rentals. That means a lot of people can’t live in areas because even if home prices went down, they can’t afford it.
The few investor homes would have sky high rents because there is no competition. Now more people want to buy or have no choice because the can't find a rental.
That means no renters, no workers at many businesses to serve you.
My former homes in Pleasanton are worth about a million. If they dropped in half the renters I had still couldn’t afford to buy which means they couldn’t even live in the area.
As far as charging a premium for investors, has this ever been brought up? If you think it’s unfair have you brought it up? Or do you just sit quietly and blame investors for making real estate go up while you quietly enjoy your increased wealth with your own home? I’m pretty sure you’re not complaining how much your house has gone up now that you’ve got yours. But of course it’s nice to look pc by blaming the evil investors.
If you think that having more cheaper houses will make more people home owners, that isn't always the case. In my area of rentals houses could be bought for as low as 30K when I bought. Rents were $900 a month for a house like that. I couldn't figure out who would pay rent instead of buying. Some of the deals I got I had to wait because the government set it up so only homeowners could buy for the first 30 days. So see it isn't a level playing field to buy investor property. But often the 30 days would go buy and no home owner would buy it so I got it. Investors weren't forcing prices up at all. There was plenty of affordable houses.
No here's the kicker. I have some rentals I’m losing a few tenants with because they are being given financial aid by the government to help them buy with no skin in the game. The increased demand by home buyers with financial help from the government now has driven prices up-not investors. Not to many investors because of high prices. I'm not buying because the high prices don't make sense for a return.
I don’t avoid real estate investing because I find it morally wrong, I don’t do it because there are easier ways to make money, imo. That’s just me, I’m lazy. I don’t consider taking free medical if you legally qualify for it immoral, regardless of whether you “paid into” the system. If you qualify legally, it’s all good.
Would you turn down free healthcare if your assets were arranged in such a way to minimize MAGI? I doubt anyone would.
I went on about 3 cruises rencently...mountains 3-4 times....beach 2-3 times. More than could stand to get out really.
I sorry, but what are you trying to accomplish? Living on $20K/yr, but then here you say you just spent $20K for the above activities. Something doesn't add up.
Which is it?
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.
