Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
greensd
ParticipantLook here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1741&DocTypeID=2
The top 20% will get 27.1% of the stimulus money, while the bottom 20% gets only 6.5%. That’s “socialism”? That’s “robin hood”? Oh, how the wealthy suffer in this country! They always get the short end of the stick. It’s almost enough to make you quit your six figure job and go on welfare, right?
ParticipantLook here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1741&DocTypeID=2
The top 20% will get 27.1% of the stimulus money, while the bottom 20% gets only 6.5%. That’s “socialism”? That’s “robin hood”? Oh, how the wealthy suffer in this country! They always get the short end of the stick. It’s almost enough to make you quit your six figure job and go on welfare, right?
ParticipantLook here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1741&DocTypeID=2
The top 20% will get 27.1% of the stimulus money, while the bottom 20% gets only 6.5%. That’s “socialism”? That’s “robin hood”? Oh, how the wealthy suffer in this country! They always get the short end of the stick. It’s almost enough to make you quit your six figure job and go on welfare, right?
ParticipantLook here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1741&DocTypeID=2
The top 20% will get 27.1% of the stimulus money, while the bottom 20% gets only 6.5%. That’s “socialism”? That’s “robin hood”? Oh, how the wealthy suffer in this country! They always get the short end of the stick. It’s almost enough to make you quit your six figure job and go on welfare, right?
ParticipantYou loose 25+% of it’s value when you drive it off the lot.
That’s not generally true anymore. A friend of mine just bought a new Toyota Avalon, and with the various rebates and incentives he got from the dealer, he paid $800 less than the bluebook value of the car with 15,000 miles on it. And that doesn’t even factor in the difference in financing a new car vs. a used car (he paid cash).
I’m a big believer in used cars, but I buy cars that are 5+ years old with lots of miles on them (I’m poor and good with a wrench). New cars are so reliable these days that they lose very little value in the first couple of years, and you can often get better deals on a new car than on a late-model used one.
ParticipantYou loose 25+% of it’s value when you drive it off the lot.
That’s not generally true anymore. A friend of mine just bought a new Toyota Avalon, and with the various rebates and incentives he got from the dealer, he paid $800 less than the bluebook value of the car with 15,000 miles on it. And that doesn’t even factor in the difference in financing a new car vs. a used car (he paid cash).
I’m a big believer in used cars, but I buy cars that are 5+ years old with lots of miles on them (I’m poor and good with a wrench). New cars are so reliable these days that they lose very little value in the first couple of years, and you can often get better deals on a new car than on a late-model used one.
ParticipantYou loose 25+% of it’s value when you drive it off the lot.
That’s not generally true anymore. A friend of mine just bought a new Toyota Avalon, and with the various rebates and incentives he got from the dealer, he paid $800 less than the bluebook value of the car with 15,000 miles on it. And that doesn’t even factor in the difference in financing a new car vs. a used car (he paid cash).
I’m a big believer in used cars, but I buy cars that are 5+ years old with lots of miles on them (I’m poor and good with a wrench). New cars are so reliable these days that they lose very little value in the first couple of years, and you can often get better deals on a new car than on a late-model used one.
ParticipantYou loose 25+% of it’s value when you drive it off the lot.
That’s not generally true anymore. A friend of mine just bought a new Toyota Avalon, and with the various rebates and incentives he got from the dealer, he paid $800 less than the bluebook value of the car with 15,000 miles on it. And that doesn’t even factor in the difference in financing a new car vs. a used car (he paid cash).
I’m a big believer in used cars, but I buy cars that are 5+ years old with lots of miles on them (I’m poor and good with a wrench). New cars are so reliable these days that they lose very little value in the first couple of years, and you can often get better deals on a new car than on a late-model used one.
ParticipantYou loose 25+% of it’s value when you drive it off the lot.
That’s not generally true anymore. A friend of mine just bought a new Toyota Avalon, and with the various rebates and incentives he got from the dealer, he paid $800 less than the bluebook value of the car with 15,000 miles on it. And that doesn’t even factor in the difference in financing a new car vs. a used car (he paid cash).
I’m a big believer in used cars, but I buy cars that are 5+ years old with lots of miles on them (I’m poor and good with a wrench). New cars are so reliable these days that they lose very little value in the first couple of years, and you can often get better deals on a new car than on a late-model used one.
ParticipantMy only point with my post as of late is to bring light to the fact that the people who are most angry are those who missed the boat.
Maybe for some, but I think you’re wrong about the majority of us, and even framing the issue this way shows how wrong you are. The point is, there is no boat! Nothing happened between 2002 and 2005 to change the fundamentals of how residential real estate works. No law of man or nature says that anyone who didn’t buy a house before 2003 will forever pay rent to someone who did. For reasons discussed endlessly on this blog and others, the real estate market got badly distorted for a little while there, and now we’re just waiting for it to get back to normal.
As for the anger, I can only speak for myself. I couldn’t buy a house back in the 90’s because I was in grad school. Seemed like a reasonable tradeoff then, and it still does. Next I couldn’t buy a house in 2002 because I was doing a postdoc overseas. Again, a fair tradeoff. Then, once I got a faculty job, I couldn’t buy a house because the markets had gone nuts while a few people made tons of quick cash. Not so fair a tradeoff, really. Pretty irritating, in fact. But I look at it like it was a war or natural disaster or something… for reasons beyond anyone’s control, sometimes things just go against you. But now, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy a house. Any policy that artificially props up unsustainable housing prices keeps me paying rent and costs me money for no good reason. It benefits a subpart of society at my expense, for no particular public good, and that makes me mad.
(I should say, though, that Bush’s freeze plan doesn’t look like it’ll do much of anything, and so it doesn’t move me one way or the other.)
ParticipantMy only point with my post as of late is to bring light to the fact that the people who are most angry are those who missed the boat.
Maybe for some, but I think you’re wrong about the majority of us, and even framing the issue this way shows how wrong you are. The point is, there is no boat! Nothing happened between 2002 and 2005 to change the fundamentals of how residential real estate works. No law of man or nature says that anyone who didn’t buy a house before 2003 will forever pay rent to someone who did. For reasons discussed endlessly on this blog and others, the real estate market got badly distorted for a little while there, and now we’re just waiting for it to get back to normal.
As for the anger, I can only speak for myself. I couldn’t buy a house back in the 90’s because I was in grad school. Seemed like a reasonable tradeoff then, and it still does. Next I couldn’t buy a house in 2002 because I was doing a postdoc overseas. Again, a fair tradeoff. Then, once I got a faculty job, I couldn’t buy a house because the markets had gone nuts while a few people made tons of quick cash. Not so fair a tradeoff, really. Pretty irritating, in fact. But I look at it like it was a war or natural disaster or something… for reasons beyond anyone’s control, sometimes things just go against you. But now, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy a house. Any policy that artificially props up unsustainable housing prices keeps me paying rent and costs me money for no good reason. It benefits a subpart of society at my expense, for no particular public good, and that makes me mad.
(I should say, though, that Bush’s freeze plan doesn’t look like it’ll do much of anything, and so it doesn’t move me one way or the other.)
ParticipantMy only point with my post as of late is to bring light to the fact that the people who are most angry are those who missed the boat.
Maybe for some, but I think you’re wrong about the majority of us, and even framing the issue this way shows how wrong you are. The point is, there is no boat! Nothing happened between 2002 and 2005 to change the fundamentals of how residential real estate works. No law of man or nature says that anyone who didn’t buy a house before 2003 will forever pay rent to someone who did. For reasons discussed endlessly on this blog and others, the real estate market got badly distorted for a little while there, and now we’re just waiting for it to get back to normal.
As for the anger, I can only speak for myself. I couldn’t buy a house back in the 90’s because I was in grad school. Seemed like a reasonable tradeoff then, and it still does. Next I couldn’t buy a house in 2002 because I was doing a postdoc overseas. Again, a fair tradeoff. Then, once I got a faculty job, I couldn’t buy a house because the markets had gone nuts while a few people made tons of quick cash. Not so fair a tradeoff, really. Pretty irritating, in fact. But I look at it like it was a war or natural disaster or something… for reasons beyond anyone’s control, sometimes things just go against you. But now, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy a house. Any policy that artificially props up unsustainable housing prices keeps me paying rent and costs me money for no good reason. It benefits a subpart of society at my expense, for no particular public good, and that makes me mad.
(I should say, though, that Bush’s freeze plan doesn’t look like it’ll do much of anything, and so it doesn’t move me one way or the other.)
ParticipantMy only point with my post as of late is to bring light to the fact that the people who are most angry are those who missed the boat.
Maybe for some, but I think you’re wrong about the majority of us, and even framing the issue this way shows how wrong you are. The point is, there is no boat! Nothing happened between 2002 and 2005 to change the fundamentals of how residential real estate works. No law of man or nature says that anyone who didn’t buy a house before 2003 will forever pay rent to someone who did. For reasons discussed endlessly on this blog and others, the real estate market got badly distorted for a little while there, and now we’re just waiting for it to get back to normal.
As for the anger, I can only speak for myself. I couldn’t buy a house back in the 90’s because I was in grad school. Seemed like a reasonable tradeoff then, and it still does. Next I couldn’t buy a house in 2002 because I was doing a postdoc overseas. Again, a fair tradeoff. Then, once I got a faculty job, I couldn’t buy a house because the markets had gone nuts while a few people made tons of quick cash. Not so fair a tradeoff, really. Pretty irritating, in fact. But I look at it like it was a war or natural disaster or something… for reasons beyond anyone’s control, sometimes things just go against you. But now, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy a house. Any policy that artificially props up unsustainable housing prices keeps me paying rent and costs me money for no good reason. It benefits a subpart of society at my expense, for no particular public good, and that makes me mad.
(I should say, though, that Bush’s freeze plan doesn’t look like it’ll do much of anything, and so it doesn’t move me one way or the other.)
ParticipantMy only point with my post as of late is to bring light to the fact that the people who are most angry are those who missed the boat.
Maybe for some, but I think you’re wrong about the majority of us, and even framing the issue this way shows how wrong you are. The point is, there is no boat! Nothing happened between 2002 and 2005 to change the fundamentals of how residential real estate works. No law of man or nature says that anyone who didn’t buy a house before 2003 will forever pay rent to someone who did. For reasons discussed endlessly on this blog and others, the real estate market got badly distorted for a little while there, and now we’re just waiting for it to get back to normal.
As for the anger, I can only speak for myself. I couldn’t buy a house back in the 90’s because I was in grad school. Seemed like a reasonable tradeoff then, and it still does. Next I couldn’t buy a house in 2002 because I was doing a postdoc overseas. Again, a fair tradeoff. Then, once I got a faculty job, I couldn’t buy a house because the markets had gone nuts while a few people made tons of quick cash. Not so fair a tradeoff, really. Pretty irritating, in fact. But I look at it like it was a war or natural disaster or something… for reasons beyond anyone’s control, sometimes things just go against you. But now, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy a house. Any policy that artificially props up unsustainable housing prices keeps me paying rent and costs me money for no good reason. It benefits a subpart of society at my expense, for no particular public good, and that makes me mad.
(I should say, though, that Bush’s freeze plan doesn’t look like it’ll do much of anything, and so it doesn’t move me one way or the other.)
-
AuthorPosts