- This topic has 195 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM #387141April 23, 2009 at 10:09 PM #386530
CA renter
ParticipantGood luck with that. There are no toxic loans for renters. If they can’t afford it, then they will either move or stack people in so tightly that your house will be thrashed within a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of LLs try to overcharge on rents in order to cover their costs. The rentals sit for months and months while they await some fool who will agree to the overpayment. Problem is, once rents rise to near PITI payments on equivalent properties, you’re going to see more turnover as the renters move to ownership. The days of 20% downpayments making the difference between renters and owners seem to be over. Even now, you can still buy a house with very little money down.
April 23, 2009 at 10:09 PM #386794ParticipantGood luck with that. There are no toxic loans for renters. If they can’t afford it, then they will either move or stack people in so tightly that your house will be thrashed within a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of LLs try to overcharge on rents in order to cover their costs. The rentals sit for months and months while they await some fool who will agree to the overpayment. Problem is, once rents rise to near PITI payments on equivalent properties, you’re going to see more turnover as the renters move to ownership. The days of 20% downpayments making the difference between renters and owners seem to be over. Even now, you can still buy a house with very little money down.
April 23, 2009 at 10:09 PM #386987ParticipantGood luck with that. There are no toxic loans for renters. If they can’t afford it, then they will either move or stack people in so tightly that your house will be thrashed within a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of LLs try to overcharge on rents in order to cover their costs. The rentals sit for months and months while they await some fool who will agree to the overpayment. Problem is, once rents rise to near PITI payments on equivalent properties, you’re going to see more turnover as the renters move to ownership. The days of 20% downpayments making the difference between renters and owners seem to be over. Even now, you can still buy a house with very little money down.
April 23, 2009 at 10:09 PM #387035ParticipantGood luck with that. There are no toxic loans for renters. If they can’t afford it, then they will either move or stack people in so tightly that your house will be thrashed within a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of LLs try to overcharge on rents in order to cover their costs. The rentals sit for months and months while they await some fool who will agree to the overpayment. Problem is, once rents rise to near PITI payments on equivalent properties, you’re going to see more turnover as the renters move to ownership. The days of 20% downpayments making the difference between renters and owners seem to be over. Even now, you can still buy a house with very little money down.
April 23, 2009 at 10:09 PM #387176ParticipantGood luck with that. There are no toxic loans for renters. If they can’t afford it, then they will either move or stack people in so tightly that your house will be thrashed within a few months.
I’ve seen plenty of LLs try to overcharge on rents in order to cover their costs. The rentals sit for months and months while they await some fool who will agree to the overpayment. Problem is, once rents rise to near PITI payments on equivalent properties, you’re going to see more turnover as the renters move to ownership. The days of 20% downpayments making the difference between renters and owners seem to be over. Even now, you can still buy a house with very little money down.
April 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM #386540paramount
ParticipantThere are many reasons for the budget situation, but for now the best thing you can do is:
6 No’s! No on 1a-1f!
April 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM #386805ParticipantThere are many reasons for the budget situation, but for now the best thing you can do is:
6 No’s! No on 1a-1f!
April 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM #386997ParticipantThere are many reasons for the budget situation, but for now the best thing you can do is:
6 No’s! No on 1a-1f!
April 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM #387045ParticipantThere are many reasons for the budget situation, but for now the best thing you can do is:
6 No’s! No on 1a-1f!
April 23, 2009 at 10:19 PM #387185ParticipantThere are many reasons for the budget situation, but for now the best thing you can do is:
6 No’s! No on 1a-1f!
April 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM #386580Shadowfax
Participant[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)
In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.
Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]
The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?
As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…
April 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM #386843Participant[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)
In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.
Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]
The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?
As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…
April 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM #387037Participant[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)
In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.
Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]
The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?
As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…
April 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM #387086Participant[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)
In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.
Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]
The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?
As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.