Scraping by, says the headline of this story on a Nebraska couple with 4 kids and $150,000 income. They don’t go to restaurants, no cable tv, no vacations; can all that money really go to raising children in Omaha?
No. Down in paragraph 18(!), we learn:
“A closer look at the Schuetts’ finances reveals, for example, that a big chunk of their income is eaten up by two rental properties. Brian purchased them thinking they’d generate extra income, but he has yet to find tenants. Even when the properties are finally occupied, the area’s softening rental market probably won’t allow them to make enough to cover carrying costs.”
New headline: ‘Paying three mortgages on one income is really, really hard.’
I just read that article before coming here. It’s pretty clear the husband is being stubborn regarding his ill timed “investment” idea. The horse probably isn’t helping much, but I almost guarantee that if they sold the rental properties they’d be quite comfortable.
What I didn;t understand was why it required a “closer look” at their finances. If you list their largest assets and expenses these would be at the top of the list. A cursory look would find this issue. What a joke.
That why I think that foreclosures and bankruptcy are not necessarily bad for the economy. That’s our system’s way of reallocating assets/resources to better owners/managers.
By holding on to those looser properties that family is not contributing to growing the economy. They are just paying debt and “scraping by.” If they sold at a lost, they could reallocate their yearly earnings to consumption and more productive investments.
I think anybody would have a problem if they went from $250,000 to $150,000 in income and hadn’t planned it.
Unfortunately, any money board discussions are full of these lame brains.
Here’s what they should do…
1> He should get a bleeping job again.
2> either rent the investment houses or sell them.
3> if you’re still debating the need for a private phone number because of the $3 charge, GET RID OF THE HORSE!
.
