Posted on 10/19/2003 6:18:32 PM PDT by nwrep
|
The irony being that young people with children actually have a need for a larger house than older people with none at home.
Housing is a funny kind of a thing compared to most spending. It isn't exactly an investment, since you pay so much in interest. It is a need and a cost, but the equity you build lets you treat it somewhat like an investment.
I know lots of folks who had a huge house they could "barely afford" when they were young, but then sold the house when they retired and bought a much smaller one and put a nice infusion of cash into their golden years.
Not exactly sound investment advice, maybe, but so often "sound investing" boils down to absurdity. It is some broker telling people, "Live on beans and rice in a one room shack, buy 20X your salary in insurance from me and give me the rest to invest for you. Someday I will give it all back and you'll be rich."
I'm in my late 50s. My generation didn't get a tax break, didn't get those low mortgage rates, and didn't even get child care subsidies for working parents. You don't "float the boat" for SS...it's floating just fine, and will be for some time to come, unless people actually buy into the argument that they'd be better off working the stock market for their pensions.
You think it's expensive now? What about all of the people who would lose everything in the stock market because they'd make bad decisions. The way to keep costs down isn't to impoverish retired people, it's to eliminate any kind of subsidy of prescription drugs or insurance policies for them. The costs would go right down if people actually had to think about paying for the over-drugging of elderly America themselves.
You are so into stereotypes. Most of the people I know live in (and own) the modest houses they raised their children in. Most take one or two off-season vacations they can afford each year. Golf games??? Isn't that where yuppie CEOs decide how to screw pensioners? (see, I can stereotype, too)
Now, you just go back to your mini-mansion and complain how the reason you can't afford that, your three cars, your $50,000 mastercard debt and your kid's private schools because some selfish retirees actually want enough money to survive.
<^..^>
I had to dish out $60.00 to get the shots. They were falling all over themsleves picking through their various forms of health insurance, supplements, etc. to get to the medicare card to get their shot for free. Then they got in their Lincoln's and drove home to their $250,000 winter home on the links.
Burned my butt.
One of my earlier posts on this thread I wrote that I don't think anyone should get subsidized health care, either directly or through government paying insurance. Prices would go down pretty quickly if people actually had to think of the value of their medications. Burns my butt, too, but I'm actually glad that the health-store stuff I prefer isn't covered by the government or insurance. Why? Coverage is control.
Social Security isn't really paying for the tee fee. Social Security is meant to be a safety net so Seniors can survive. If people have supplemental income from saving, a part time job, or investments, good for them!
You sound like the Bescemi(?) character in Armagadden. Think it's time to "Embrace the horror)?
The hubris and arrogance of our leaders in their efforts to force their own "sqaure peg" thinking into a round hole has put us all at risk, like it or not. I've done what I can to place myself in a defensive postition and now it it time to sit and watch it all play out.
Richard W.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.