- This topic has 465 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
gn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM #466190October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM #465367
an
ParticipantYou just changed the rule yourself. We were talking about paying off your house, but now, you changed it to paid off w/ 1 case and 27 years for another case. But you know what, I’ll just say this, I said what I need to say and since you love to win, so, you win. BTW, after 30 years, one person have their house paid off and the other person still have $90k loan on the house. So if the house sell for $600k in 30 years, the person who paid 600k will have paid $764020 to live in that house. The other person who waited 3 years, they paid $500k for the place and sell it for $600k will have paid $762911.45 to live in the same place over the same period of time.
October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM #465556ParticipantYou just changed the rule yourself. We were talking about paying off your house, but now, you changed it to paid off w/ 1 case and 27 years for another case. But you know what, I’ll just say this, I said what I need to say and since you love to win, so, you win. BTW, after 30 years, one person have their house paid off and the other person still have $90k loan on the house. So if the house sell for $600k in 30 years, the person who paid 600k will have paid $764020 to live in that house. The other person who waited 3 years, they paid $500k for the place and sell it for $600k will have paid $762911.45 to live in the same place over the same period of time.
October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM #465910ParticipantYou just changed the rule yourself. We were talking about paying off your house, but now, you changed it to paid off w/ 1 case and 27 years for another case. But you know what, I’ll just say this, I said what I need to say and since you love to win, so, you win. BTW, after 30 years, one person have their house paid off and the other person still have $90k loan on the house. So if the house sell for $600k in 30 years, the person who paid 600k will have paid $764020 to live in that house. The other person who waited 3 years, they paid $500k for the place and sell it for $600k will have paid $762911.45 to live in the same place over the same period of time.
October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM #465983ParticipantYou just changed the rule yourself. We were talking about paying off your house, but now, you changed it to paid off w/ 1 case and 27 years for another case. But you know what, I’ll just say this, I said what I need to say and since you love to win, so, you win. BTW, after 30 years, one person have their house paid off and the other person still have $90k loan on the house. So if the house sell for $600k in 30 years, the person who paid 600k will have paid $764020 to live in that house. The other person who waited 3 years, they paid $500k for the place and sell it for $600k will have paid $762911.45 to live in the same place over the same period of time.
October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM #466195ParticipantYou just changed the rule yourself. We were talking about paying off your house, but now, you changed it to paid off w/ 1 case and 27 years for another case. But you know what, I’ll just say this, I said what I need to say and since you love to win, so, you win. BTW, after 30 years, one person have their house paid off and the other person still have $90k loan on the house. So if the house sell for $600k in 30 years, the person who paid 600k will have paid $764020 to live in that house. The other person who waited 3 years, they paid $500k for the place and sell it for $600k will have paid $762911.45 to live in the same place over the same period of time.
October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM #465372sdcellar
ParticipantYes, I did becuase you set the precedent for changing the rules as we go. I also pointed out my own mistake already.
If I need someone to say “but…”, changing the parameters for discussion, or restating what I already said so it sounds like they thought of it first, I’ll be sure to look to your way first.
October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM #465561ParticipantYes, I did becuase you set the precedent for changing the rules as we go. I also pointed out my own mistake already.
If I need someone to say “but…”, changing the parameters for discussion, or restating what I already said so it sounds like they thought of it first, I’ll be sure to look to your way first.
October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM #465915ParticipantYes, I did becuase you set the precedent for changing the rules as we go. I also pointed out my own mistake already.
If I need someone to say “but…”, changing the parameters for discussion, or restating what I already said so it sounds like they thought of it first, I’ll be sure to look to your way first.
October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM #465988ParticipantYes, I did becuase you set the precedent for changing the rules as we go. I also pointed out my own mistake already.
If I need someone to say “but…”, changing the parameters for discussion, or restating what I already said so it sounds like they thought of it first, I’ll be sure to look to your way first.
October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM #466200ParticipantYes, I did becuase you set the precedent for changing the rules as we go. I also pointed out my own mistake already.
If I need someone to say “but…”, changing the parameters for discussion, or restating what I already said so it sounds like they thought of it first, I’ll be sure to look to your way first.
October 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM #465377ParticipantSo, am I wrong w/ my $ based on your rules and assumptions? I didn’t change the rule, I admitted I missed one variable. But you seem to be happy w/out that variable.
BTW, I actually miss calculated the interest paid over 27 years for the $500k case. The total cost should be $776954.45.
October 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM #465566ParticipantSo, am I wrong w/ my $ based on your rules and assumptions? I didn’t change the rule, I admitted I missed one variable. But you seem to be happy w/out that variable.
BTW, I actually miss calculated the interest paid over 27 years for the $500k case. The total cost should be $776954.45.
October 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM #465920ParticipantSo, am I wrong w/ my $ based on your rules and assumptions? I didn’t change the rule, I admitted I missed one variable. But you seem to be happy w/out that variable.
BTW, I actually miss calculated the interest paid over 27 years for the $500k case. The total cost should be $776954.45.
October 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM #465993ParticipantSo, am I wrong w/ my $ based on your rules and assumptions? I didn’t change the rule, I admitted I missed one variable. But you seem to be happy w/out that variable.
BTW, I actually miss calculated the interest paid over 27 years for the $500k case. The total cost should be $776954.45.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
