Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participantmeritocracy
For better or worse, the U.S. is a meritocracy. Your success depends on your ingenuity, hardwork, genius, and ability. Hard work in and of itself is not a guarantee of success and in fact, there are no guarantees for success here at all.
Is it harder than it used to be? Sure. There will always be external pressures that will change the economies and leave some people in the dust. Is it impossible to succeed? No.
But the problem with the “divide the wealth more equally” argument is that not everyone is equally deserving of that wealth. In fact, it is the opposite, because those who have accumulated that wealth are probably in a better position to make more efficient use of that wealth. I mean, not every rich person in the world is a globe-trotting dilenttante who spends money like water. That’s the illusion. There are a lot of rich people who use their money wisely, donate it, and in fact make good use of their money.
When you want to “divide the wealth more equally”, who decides how the money is to be used? The gov’t? I mean, because clearly they have such a terrific track record of working with money!
Who are you going to give it to? The so-called average American who can’t even save money for themselves?
That’s why the wealthy are wealthy – for the most part, they know how to manage their money.
Participantmeritocracy
For better or worse, the U.S. is a meritocracy. Your success depends on your ingenuity, hardwork, genius, and ability. Hard work in and of itself is not a guarantee of success and in fact, there are no guarantees for success here at all.
Is it harder than it used to be? Sure. There will always be external pressures that will change the economies and leave some people in the dust. Is it impossible to succeed? No.
But the problem with the “divide the wealth more equally” argument is that not everyone is equally deserving of that wealth. In fact, it is the opposite, because those who have accumulated that wealth are probably in a better position to make more efficient use of that wealth. I mean, not every rich person in the world is a globe-trotting dilenttante who spends money like water. That’s the illusion. There are a lot of rich people who use their money wisely, donate it, and in fact make good use of their money.
When you want to “divide the wealth more equally”, who decides how the money is to be used? The gov’t? I mean, because clearly they have such a terrific track record of working with money!
Who are you going to give it to? The so-called average American who can’t even save money for themselves?
That’s why the wealthy are wealthy – for the most part, they know how to manage their money.
Participantmeritocracy
For better or worse, the U.S. is a meritocracy. Your success depends on your ingenuity, hardwork, genius, and ability. Hard work in and of itself is not a guarantee of success and in fact, there are no guarantees for success here at all.
Is it harder than it used to be? Sure. There will always be external pressures that will change the economies and leave some people in the dust. Is it impossible to succeed? No.
But the problem with the “divide the wealth more equally” argument is that not everyone is equally deserving of that wealth. In fact, it is the opposite, because those who have accumulated that wealth are probably in a better position to make more efficient use of that wealth. I mean, not every rich person in the world is a globe-trotting dilenttante who spends money like water. That’s the illusion. There are a lot of rich people who use their money wisely, donate it, and in fact make good use of their money.
When you want to “divide the wealth more equally”, who decides how the money is to be used? The gov’t? I mean, because clearly they have such a terrific track record of working with money!
Who are you going to give it to? The so-called average American who can’t even save money for themselves?
That’s why the wealthy are wealthy – for the most part, they know how to manage their money.
Participant37?! (bland movie reference…)
Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).
And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.
In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.
My two cents.
Participant37?! (bland movie reference…)
Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).
And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.
In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.
My two cents.
Participant37?! (bland movie reference…)
Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).
And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.
In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.
My two cents.
Participant37?! (bland movie reference…)
Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).
And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.
In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.
My two cents.
Participant37?! (bland movie reference…)
Most flipper/speculators do not have 10 or even close to 10 mortgages. Most of the people with 10 mortgages were/are investors, who have a vested interest in making their properties nice and rentable, providing a good source for habitable and quality housing. There are actually not a lot of people investing in middle-tier housing (most investors are either in SFR/condos or companies with 50+ unit apartments). So in my sphere, the structure is pretty good for supplying housing (and not necessarily encouraging homeownership, but providing housing).
And honestly, if it weren’t for many small landlords, the only affordable housing would be by corporations, who only tend to provide high density apartments because of economies of scale.
In any case, the 10 mortgage limit was probably some kind of arbitrary number and was probably predicated on the idea that people were responsible and would honor their debts. However, with the current environment and the advice being “walk away from your mortgage” being prevalent, it was probably a wise idea to at least limit the number of mortgages. Still, in my experience, the rule has the effect of punishing those who have followed the rules and been honorable (as many of us here can attest to) – namely the small and getting started investor.
My two cents.
Participant(ha!)
The bases were pretty useful during the Iraq wars. 🙂
Participant(ha!)
The bases were pretty useful during the Iraq wars. 🙂
Participant(ha!)
The bases were pretty useful during the Iraq wars. 🙂
Participant(ha!)
The bases were pretty useful during the Iraq wars. 🙂
Participant(ha!)
The bases were pretty useful during the Iraq wars. 🙂
Participantrents!
Arraya: This is simply false. I can tell you emphatically that rents are going down right now.
There are probably some areas and some specific properties that have rents going down, but in general, San Diego isn’t experiencing a lowering of rent.
“The average rent in San Diego County was $1,378, a 0.6 percent increase from the fourth quarter of 2007 and a 3.7 increase over last year’s first quarter, according to the survey of complexes of 100 units or more.”
I myself have been seeing rents rise.
-
AuthorPosts
