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.
From all the sane, conservative and measured responses we get in this thread, you would think that we are a nation of fiscally conservative people who have mastered the art of living well on less money.
But we aren't. We are out-of-control and buy the biggest, shiniest objects and homes that we can afford. Our debt load shows that.
I am curious to how many people are out there that don't want large, nice, expensive homes, but can afford them? I'm not necessarily talking mansions, but larger nice homes that just show that you have a lot of money. The ones you see in affluent suburbs and they wow you. What percentage of people that have money would you say are like that?
That's one of the vaguest questions I've ever heard. What's a "large home?" What's a "nice home?" What's an "expensive home?" What is a "lot of money?" What do you consider "money?" Cash under your mattress? Solid gold bars in a safe? A huge gun collection in your bomb shelter you can barter in the zombie apocalypse? Liquid assets in a bank? Stocks? Bonds? IRA? College funds? Mutual funds? And how do you define "affording a home?" Paying cash outright? Paying 10% down? 20%? 50%? What do you consider an "affluent suburb?" Only on CD. . .
From all the sane, conservative and measured responses we get in this thread, you would think that we are a nation of fiscally conservative people who have mastered the art of living well on less money.
But we aren't. We are out-of-control and buy the biggest, shiniest objects and homes that we can afford. Our debt load shows that.
30% of homes have no mortgage.
Additionally, cash purchases help maintain that stat.
We have debt for many things.
Cars
Cellphones.
Credit Cards.
Boats.
College.
Vacations.
Second homes.
More cars.
A great many people who buy houses ARE fiscally conservative. It is one reason they are able to do so.
Those who fail, whether over-debted or not, are the ones who make the "If it bleeds, it leads" headlines.
From all the sane, conservative and measured responses we get in this thread, you would think that we are a nation of fiscally conservative people who have mastered the art of living well on less money.
But we aren't. We are out-of-control and buy the biggest, shiniest objects and homes that we can afford. Our debt load shows that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
30% of homes have no mortgage.
Additionally, cash purchases help maintain that stat.
We have debt for many things.
Cars
Cellphones.
Credit Cards.
Boats.
College.
Vacations.
Second homes.
More cars.
A great many people who buy houses ARE fiscally conservative. It is one reason they are able to do so.
Those who fail, whether over-debted or not, are the ones who make the "If it bleeds, it leads" headlines.
You're both correct.
Mike's of course correct, though it ignores that there are a lot of people that might comment "Its all I need, I don't want to clean it, I don't want to show off..." that in fact, can't afford more or don't want to buy more since it would cut into other things.
I am curious to how many people are out there that don't want large, nice, expensive homes, but can afford them? I'm not necessarily talking mansions, but larger nice homes that just show that you have a lot of money. The ones you see in affluent suburbs and they wow you. What percentage of people that have money would you say are like that?
What exactly is considered a "nice home" and "lot of money'?
Here in metro Boston, a postwar, 1500SF ranch that's been reasonably updated can be had for $500K+ depending on the neighborhood. That's a lot of money to most people, but may not be considered a "nice home" compared to what you can get for less in many other states around the country.
My wife and I are building a net worth but living in a larger home? Not ever going to happen where we live. Our home is 4 bedroom 2 and a half bath. It is 1,670 square feet on 6,000 square foot lot. Our combined income is approaching $200,000. Include our one working child and our household income exceeds $200,000. We feel far from rich. We prefer to build our net worth then to spend money on a larger home. It would be cheaper for us to turn our home into our dream home then to go out and buy a dream home. It would be better financially to take that money and buy another home to rent out. At the moment we take our money and invest it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge View Post
I’m the odd man out here. There’s 7 pages of people saying how modest they live and choose to bank the savings. I bought a McMansion for the status and because I enjoy it ( I admit it). I can afford it and I wanted it so rather try to,impress all those who humblebrag about how they live modestly and below their means, I bought what made me happy. I’m not impressing the neighbors, they all have similar homes.
It is not a financial hardship and I actually set up my situation where the cost is less then when I rented a house 1/3 the size.
Everybody is talking about how those that bought McMansions aren’t saving as much. No one knows for sure. Some of those people you think that have stretched themselves might well be making way more money than you and even saving and investing a lot more than you.
In the end you all sound happy with your decision to live in smaller homes for various reasons, but I don’t think it’s fair to label others a certain way because they chose a larger house. You only live once and if you can afford it, get it. That’s why you work.
Some posters said McMansions are overkill and are happy with 2500 sq feet. Keep in mind others living in 1000 sq feet might well be making the same comments about you that you make on others that choose a a macmansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau
Finally an honest poster. I figured someone with a big home would have to chime in at some point. My post was really referring to people who could afford a big home and still have money for other things like vacations, not having to chose one over the other
So, this is the only honest poster in this entire thread because he aligns with your original statement? I guess the rest of us are just liars living in huge houses who like to sit by our windows and watch the neighbors goggle as they walk or drive by. You caught us.
I, personally, really enjoy having a small house. It's only my dog and me and it's the perfect size for my life. Given unlimited wealth, I would still want a little house. Maybe it could be part of a horse farm though, but I wouldn't want the house much bigger. In my current situation, I like knowing that I have enough money to save and do other things. And should I be forced to retire before I want to, I will be able to stay in my little house. I like that I can clean the house quickly and simply and that my laundry is just steps away (and on the same floor) from any room in the house. I see houses come on the market for 100K or more over what I paid and I don't feel even the slightest twinge of envy or regret.
Honestly, I don't know why I am bothering. I like what I have, I really don't care if anyone believes 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.
