Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM in reply to: OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings #735820
an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, an “employee” (such as yourself) pays 5.65% (in Jan 2011 thru Feb 2012) or 7.65% of your GROSS pay towards FICA.[/quote]
Thanks for pointing that out. A mistake in numbers in my part. Still wouldn’t change my answer though. With SS projected to be insolvent by 2017: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/22/politics/main20095431.shtml, I’m not counting on any SS $. That’s only 6 years after the first boomer start to retire. So, let me reiterate, hell yes I’d glad give up SS if I can stop paying taxes for it and get my SS taxes that I paid back.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
I would gladly give up SS if I could self direct the money I contribute every year.[/quote]
I would gladly do it too, if I can keep my 15% I pay to SS.ParticipantThis is anecdotal, but my friend’s parents are selling their 4 houses in the bay and retiring in SD. I ask him why and he said because of the weather and there are a lot more things to do here if you’re an outdoor type of people. I don’t know how many of those people are out there, but I think the timing is ripe for these people to start retiring with their riches in SD. There must be more than a few who are approaching retirement in the bay who seeks more temperate weather and have the $ to move here.
ParticipantIsn’t the real estate mantra is location, location, location? 92130 > 92127, hence the value you see with Valencia.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=flu]
Added to ignore users.
[/quote]
Yep.[/quote]
My first 🙂Participant[quote=bearishgurl]brian, its been 25 years for me (taking out only ARM mtgs). I feel I HAVE saved a lot of money over the years since I never had a need for “serial refinancing” (for a rate reduction) OR “cash out.”
However, since I believe I have a low lifetime cap of 2.7%, I’ll never see a low of 2% with my current mtg (assuming fixed rates ever go that low).
***
Happy holidays, Piggs! I’ve been “swamped” lately :=D[/quote]
I never knew there’s a lifetime limit. Brian, how can your friend enjoy these new low rates if they got an ARM 20 years ago without refinancing?Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]Today, we’re at 50+ years low, do you think it’s as wise to go with ARM as the 1980s, when you were above historical average?[/quote]
I think it depends on your holding period. If you want to buy for 7 years and then move up, then I think an ARM might be the way to go.
The difference between 4% and 2.75% is huge in terms of percentage. Maybe go with the ARM and put the difference towards paying down the principal.
I think that rates will stay low for the next 5 years or so because that’s how long it will take the western economies to work out the debt overhang. By that time we would have had our own lost decade of slow economic growth.
IMO, as long as economic growth does not get stronger, central banks will work extra hard to keep rates low.
I think that 1963 to 1983, roughly a two decade stretch, was a different kind of economy. Population growth was strong. People were buying cars and new technology. The babies boomers were moving to the suburbs, installing central air, and enjoying things their parents never had growing up.
Anyway, time will tell… in 5 to 7 years, we can look back just for fun.[/quote]
I agree with you that it all depends on your desired holding period. If you plan to hold for only 7 years, getting a 7/1 ARM is almost like getting a FRM, since rate won’t change for you at all. Even if rate goes down, you won’t get the lower rate. Unless you’re talking about getting a 1/1 ARM.You say rates will stay low for the next 5 years, but you didn’t say wether it’ll be lower than it is today or higher and what’s consider low? Considering historical average is ~8%, isn’t anything <8% considered low?
I agree that as long as economic growth doesn't get stronger, the central banks will work extra hard to keep rates low. For our sake, I hope we will get stronger economic grow soon. It would suck for a lot of people if we continue what we're seeing today for the next 5-10 years.
Kids have always and I would assume will always enjoy things their parents never had growing up. Just look at kids today, they're enjoying smartphones and tablets. Their parents never had such things growing up, even if their parents were billionaires.
BTW, serial refinancing isn't always a bad thing, especially if you get a credit back.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
WASHINGTON — The population of the United States grew this year at its slowest rate since the 1940s, the Census Bureau reported on Wednesday, as the gloomy economy continued to depress births and immigration fell to its lowest level since 1991.
I still think that legalizing 11 million undocumented immigrants would be great for the economy and housing.[/quote]
I say giving the millions of people who wants to get a green card and have a BS degree or greater would be a greater help for the economy and housing. How about the many students who came here to get a college education, only to be kick out after they graduate.ParticipantSure, if you look from the peak to now, it was a good idea to go with ARM. Here’s a chart from 1963: http://mortgage-x.com/images/graph/fhfb_contract_rate.gif
Those who got ARM in 1963 would be pretty pissed off for not getting a FRM. It didn’t get back to sub 6% until 40 years later. Today, we’re at 50+ years low, do you think it’s as wise to go with ARM as the 1980s, when you were above historical average?Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]So, “scientifically”, there aren’t major disadvantages to starting a family at 29 compared to 22 unless you really want 4+ children. There’s actually a lot of good evidence that a later start to having kids provides a lot of advantages to those children, although of course correlation is not necessarily causation.[/quote]
That’s a huge advantage. If you want to have a lot of kids, the sooner you start, the better. I didn’t say women are not fertile at 30. I’m just saying women MORE fertile at 20. Am I wrong for saying women are MOST fertile around 20? This is the chart I find regarding age and fertility: http://www.babycentre.co.uk/i/preconception/infertilitygraph.gifParticipant[quote=briansd1]the marriage age has been creeping up.
in 1960, 20/22 yo was normal to get married. Seems awfully young to get married and have kids.
Marriage rate is at a low.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/marriage-rate-falls-to-record-low-in-u-s-pew-says/%5B/quote%5D
That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.December 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM in reply to: Recommendation needed: Best smart phone with Verizon #734846Participant[quote=afx114]How’s that 4G battery life werkin’ out forya?[/quote]
With 4G on, I get through about 1 day with normal usage (my normal is a lot more intensive than most). You have an option to turn 4G off, then it’ll function just like any other 3G phone. You can turn on 4G to do tethering.December 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM in reply to: Recommendation needed: Best smart phone with Verizon #734831Participantjimmyle, it depends on which OS you want. My wife loves her Trophy. Not the highest spec’ed phone out there, but it’s buttery smooth compare to other much higher spec’ed phones (including iPhone). If you don’t want WP7 phone, then go with the Galaxy Nexus (the latest and greatest from Android). There’s always the iPhone 4S if you want to stay w/ iOS.
threadkiller, you can check out the Motorola Defy: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372480,00.asp
Participant[quote=flu]I didn’t say generation X’ers were much better. In a lot of ways, they’re worse.[/quote]
My bad. Didn’t know you were that cynical. I personally don’t think they’re that bad. -
AuthorPosts
