(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

(09-20-2022 10:14 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

If the rich were getting exponentially richer while the bottom were getting not as much better off but had a better quality of life now than 40 years ago that would be fine. That would be the whole "rising tides lifting all boats" nonsense I've heard my entire life. Scarcity though actually is real, and we've been transferring wealth upward for 40 years on the myth that it's going to flow back down and make things better for the middle/bottom. And we've continued to drop corporate tax rates over and over and yet they continue to outsource jobs and use profits not to invest in their businesses but to invest in shareholders with massive stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

(09-20-2022 11:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:14 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

If the rich were getting exponentially richer while the bottom were getting not as much better off but had a better quality of life now than 40 years ago that would be fine. That would be the whole "rising tides lifting all boats" nonsense I've heard my entire life. Scarcity though actually is real, and we've been transferring wealth upward for 40 years on the myth that it's going to flow back down and make things better for the middle/bottom. And we've continued to drop corporate tax rates over and over and yet they continue to outsource jobs and use profits not to invest in their businesses but to invest in shareholders with massive stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

I want to preface all of this by saying I acknowledge you want everyone in the country to do well, and I agree with that motive and want the same thing. However, most of the solutions offered by liberals will not actually help it come to fruition. The bottom class will always be there regardless if you're a Keynesian or Rand believer.

The poor in this country have 40 inch tvs, the newest iPhones, internet, etc. They are living better today than the middle class in 1985. It's an objective fact - mostly due to technological advances that the world (mostly America) has made since then. We paid people to sit on their asses for an entire year and it didn't work out.

There will always be outsourcing in every country, but getting the world to zero tariffs and having one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world will attract business investment from China, Europe, and Canada. It would create more good American jobs.

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

I achieved my goal of ZERO debt at retirement. Im working part time just to stay busy while drawing SS now. My wife has a couple of years before she can call it quits. I can't stress enough how wonderful it is to NOT owe a dime to anyone. It's the most "freeing" thing Ive ever encountered. Ive seen experts claim that being debt free is a mistake. I can say without any hesitation...they don't know WTF they are talking about. Just being able to pocket the money spent on mortgage payments alone is like getting the biggest raise of my life. We may move closer to the coast in a couple of years but it will be a cash only deal. Im not ever going to have a mortgage again.

(09-19-2022 09:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  When I bought my first home I was 28 and my second I was about 35(?) That marriage didn't last and I gave up my rights to the house so that my ex could live in it. She didn't like to work but somehow managed to keep it. My sons suffered through all that. The realtor that did the work for my ex called me one time complaining that she screwed up and never got paid by my wife for her services.She wanted my help. I told her, "tough teety, that problem is all yours as I have no desire to intervene in either of yours business. I don't think the realtor ever got any money. I married my present wife and she was one of those people that will not pay full price on anything. We put up 20% of the price of the house and we paid it off in 11 years. That had always been my dream of owning my home outright. We've been here since 2000.

The American Dream really is not having a mortgage or a car payment any longer.

I can attest...Its pretty damn sweet. Ill never have either again.

(09-20-2022 02:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

I achieved my goal of ZERO debt at retirement. Im working part time just to stay busy while drawing SS now. My wife has a couple of years before she can call it quits. I can't stress enough how wonderful it is to NOT owe a dime to anyone. It's the most "freeing" thing Ive ever encountered. Ive seen experts claim that being debt free is a mistake. I can say without any hesitation...they don't know WTF they are talking about. Just being able to pocket the money spent on mortgage payments alone is like getting the biggest raise of my life. We may move closer to the coast in a couple of years but it will be a cash only deal. Im not ever going to have a mortgage again.

To hell with those experts. Yes, I could have taken the money used to pay off my mortgage and invested it but there is no better financial feeling than having no debt. No mortgage, no car payments, etc. Now, if only the stupid R/E taxes would go away. I guess we never really own our homes.

(09-19-2022 06:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Based on what Im seeing and hearing right now September home sale numbers are going to be horrific. The residential real estate industry may be headed for a period worse than the Great Recession---and home sales usually is a leading indicator of the direction of the overall economy. One interesting indicator---for the first time since March of 2021 the average home sold for LESS than its list price.

The market created this bubble and at some point it's going to burst. My advice is to save and wait it out. It's not going to happen everywhere but it is going to happen nationwide especially in rural areas that got caught up in it. I watched homes in my town of less than 5000 sell for stupid prices. Those buyers are going to screwed down the road when they have to sell. There will be good buys to be had when this thing busts.

(09-20-2022 11:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:14 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

If the rich were getting exponentially richer while the bottom were getting not as much better off but had a better quality of life now than 40 years ago that would be fine. That would be the whole "rising tides lifting all boats" nonsense I've heard my entire life. Scarcity though actually is real, and we've been transferring wealth upward for 40 years on the myth that it's going to flow back down and make things better for the middle/bottom. And we've continued to drop corporate tax rates over and over and yet they continue to outsource jobs and use profits not to invest in their businesses but to invest in shareholders with massive stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

While the housing market is debatable I would say other than that yes you have it better off today than 40 years ago....

Your spending is the real problem

40 years ago you were lucky to have 2 TVs in a house and both were most likely going on 5 years

40 years ago a family might have had 1 car under 5 years old and another 10 or more years old...if at all on that 2nd car

40 years ago if you ate out every Friday or Saturday (not both) you were living the high life

40 years ago if your kids had bikes one was most likely handed down

Today not only are people filling ROOMS with new TVs they are buying 50+ inch new TVs every other year and not only is there one in the family/livingroom each bedroom will have a TV

Today a Junker is that 3 year old car and Mom and Pop and little Johnny if he's 16 years old are driving cars. Cars that are being replaced every 4 to 6 years

Today most people are eating out 5 out of 7 days and a lot 7 days

Today kids dont worry about a bike they have a $600 to $1,000 phone or a new PC or $600 game system that keeps them in the house. Along with another $150 to $200 a month on service and games. Each of those are being replace when the "new got to have it" replacement comes out the next year.

Today's problem is a SPENDING problem along with the housing problem. But lets be completely honest and not pretend the housing market has been this way for long term....

up till this year you had rates lower than anytime in history. Until 24 months ago housing prices were kind of flat. The 3 years before that you could still get great deals along with 4% interest .

Stop spending 10s of thousands of dollars on phones, game systems, eating out and that $1,000 a month car payment and drive a beater (like 40 years ago) and you would have had no problem owning a home before the prices got ridiculous.


SPENDING PROBLEM
PRIORITY PROBLEM
GOT TO HAVE IT TODAY PROBLEM

(09-20-2022 03:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 11:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:14 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

If the rich were getting exponentially richer while the bottom were getting not as much better off but had a better quality of life now than 40 years ago that would be fine. That would be the whole "rising tides lifting all boats" nonsense I've heard my entire life. Scarcity though actually is real, and we've been transferring wealth upward for 40 years on the myth that it's going to flow back down and make things better for the middle/bottom. And we've continued to drop corporate tax rates over and over and yet they continue to outsource jobs and use profits not to invest in their businesses but to invest in shareholders with massive stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

While the housing market is debatable I would say other than that yes you have it better off today than 40 years ago....

Your spending is the real problem

40 years ago you were lucky to have 2 TVs in a house and both were most likely going on 5 years

40 years ago a family might have had 1 car under 5 years old and another 10 or more years old...if at all on that 2nd car

40 years ago if you ate out every Friday or Saturday (not both) you were living the high life

40 years ago if your kids had bikes one was most likely handed down

Today not only are people filling ROOMS with new TVs they are buying 50+ inch new TVs every other year and not only is there one in the family/livingroom each bedroom will have a TV

Today a Junker is that 3 year old car and Mom and Pop and little Johnny if he's 16 years old are driving cars. Cars that are being replaced every 4 to 6 years

Today most people are eating out 5 out of 7 days and a lot 7 days

Today kids dont worry about a bike they have a $600 to $1,000 phone or a new PC or $600 game system that keeps them in the house. Along with another $150 to $200 a month on service and games. Each of those are being replace when the "new got to have it" replacement comes out the next year.

Today's problem is a SPENDING problem along with the housing problem. But lets be completely honest and not pretend the housing market has been this way for long term....

up till this year you had rates lower than anytime in history. Until 24 months ago housing prices were kind of flat. The 3 years before that you could still get great deals along with 4% interest .

Stop spending 10s of thousands of dollars on phones, game systems, eating out and that $1,000 a month car payment and drive a beater (like 40 years ago) and you would have had no problem owning a home before the prices got ridiculous.


SPENDING PROBLEM
PRIORITY PROBLEM
GOT TO HAVE IT TODAY PROBLEM

There is for sure a lot of validity to this both in our personal lives and the bureaucracy we support through the confiscated fruits of our labors. We generally generate plenty of revenue in our personal lives and the government generates enormous amounts...its the allocation of those resources that is most of our problem.

(09-20-2022 03:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 11:14 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:14 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

Leftist economic policy: "Fair share" rhetoric (what does that even mean?), 30,000 pages of regulations, more entitlement spending, insane amount of debt.

Confiscating the 1%'s money through taxation won't fix the insane spending we do every year.

Yet you have it backwards. Stop focusing on income inequality as the main factor of a robust economic system.

Corporate tax rates need to be as low as possible. We need more capital in the current system vs outsourcing. I'm not arguing for tariffs or protectionism, but it's too expensive for companies to do business here. Raising the corporate rate may feel "fairer," but it won't make a dent in the deficit and it will A) Make everything even more expensive B) Make them offshore even more and thus lose decent paying jobs.

As for the top marginal rate being lowered back in the early 80s, it was a great thing for the country. Massive growth, much larger middle class, tax base grew. The New Deal is outdated and cannot last in a global market. With property tax, income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, most people give away 40% of their labor to a bloated government that continues to rack up too much spending debt. SS was always destined to go broke because of Boomer retirees and not enough workers to pay for it all. If the left wants to take more taxes to fund SS long term, we can discuss that, but there needs to also be cuts made across the entire budget (Healthcare, defense, etc). You cannot have it all.

If the rich were getting exponentially richer while the bottom were getting not as much better off but had a better quality of life now than 40 years ago that would be fine. That would be the whole "rising tides lifting all boats" nonsense I've heard my entire life. Scarcity though actually is real, and we've been transferring wealth upward for 40 years on the myth that it's going to flow back down and make things better for the middle/bottom. And we've continued to drop corporate tax rates over and over and yet they continue to outsource jobs and use profits not to invest in their businesses but to invest in shareholders with massive stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

While the housing market is debatable I would say other than that yes you have it better off today than 40 years ago....

Your spending is the real problem

40 years ago you were lucky to have 2 TVs in a house and both were most likely going on 5 years

40 years ago a family might have had 1 car under 5 years old and another 10 or more years old...if at all on that 2nd car

40 years ago if you ate out every Friday or Saturday (not both) you were living the high life

40 years ago if your kids had bikes one was most likely handed down

Today not only are people filling ROOMS with new TVs they are buying 50+ inch new TVs every other year and not only is there one in the family/livingroom each bedroom will have a TV

Today a Junker is that 3 year old car and Mom and Pop and little Johnny if he's 16 years old are driving cars. Cars that are being replaced every 4 to 6 years

Today most people are eating out 5 out of 7 days and a lot 7 days

Today kids dont worry about a bike they have a $600 to $1,000 phone or a new PC or $600 game system that keeps them in the house. Along with another $150 to $200 a month on service and games. Each of those are being replace when the "new got to have it" replacement comes out the next year.

Today's problem is a SPENDING problem along with the housing problem. But lets be completely honest and not pretend the housing market has been this way for long term....

up till this year you had rates lower than anytime in history. Until 24 months ago housing prices were kind of flat. The 3 years before that you could still get great deals along with 4% interest .

Stop spending 10s of thousands of dollars on phones, game systems, eating out and that $1,000 a month car payment and drive a beater (like 40 years ago) and you would have had no problem owning a home before the prices got ridiculous.


SPENDING PROBLEM
PRIORITY PROBLEM
GOT TO HAVE IT TODAY PROBLEM

To be fair---I think its both. Todays life style was perfectly affordable for most middle class families just 2 years ago. The inability of production to continue providing the same output during Covid is a huuuuge part of the current inflation problem. There are products that are simply not available---no matter how much your willing to pay. That said---the Democrat spending policies that dumped tons of helicopter money on the population was like pouring gasoline on a flaming barbecue pit. It created a situation where more dollars were chasing the same supply constrained pool of goods---so, of course prices rose. Increased costs and a labor shortage resulted in rising wages----which caused cost of production to increase----resulting in labor demanding higher wages----creating the dreaded inflationary feedback loop.

Raising and lowering interest rates is a really good control mechanism to retard or accelerate the demand side of the economy. Im not nearly as sure the Fed's favorite control mechanism will work as well when a huge part of the problem is simply insufficient supply.

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Hunh

Why can these other folks clearly afford to pay for this first home, but not you?

Market is what the market will bear. Again, if someone’s willing to pay 300,000 for this house, welp, that’s the new market price.

Wise up. Stop whining

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Sometimes timing just sucks for the young. Im sure it sucked for young adults in the Great Depression. I can remember the early 1980's when 30-year mortgage rates zoomed into the mid-teens (15-16%). I was just starting out and Houston was booming and by the time I had saved a down payment, rates had zoomed to 15%. I wasnt going to buy with prices high and rates through the roof. I wasnt the only one who felt that way. When rates went crazy like that, the builders were really struggling to sell anything.

The only way they managed to sell homes with 15%+ interest rates was by using crazy financing gimmicks and incentives. The builders were paying points on the mortgages---buying down the interest rate to make the payment tolerable. The builders were paying $10K in points on an $85K house (that was probably really only worth $75K) just to get the interest rate low enough that a typical buyer could afford it. Even then, the reduced interest rate only lasted for 3 or 4 years----but the sales pitch was "You'll be making more money by the time the interest rate goes back up--plus you can refinance later when the rates eventually fall". The worst gimmick of all was the negative amortization loans. These were loans where the payment started low and slowly rose each year. The payment changed every year----but the interest rate was constant---so in the early years your payment didnt even cover the interest and your principal balance actually got bigger each month (negative amortization). Same sales pitch, "The payment is low and affordable now---and as your salary grows, you'll be able to afford it when the payment goes up." Those mortgages were disasters. When people got in financial trouble a few years later when the payment starting rising---they just walked away from the home because the mortgage had grown to the point that they owed more than the home was worth.

Anyway--point is there are stretches when the economic conditions suck and if you are young and just getting started when those times hit---you just have to grind through it. Eventually things will settle down and either those Raleigh home prices will fall or the median salary in Raleigh will rise to the point that those homes are affordable to the typical middle class worker. An imbalance between home values and median salary is an unsustainable condition--it eventually resolves one way or another. For me, it turned out that the local Houston market crashed in the mid-1980's and I was able to buy my first home---it was a REO property the bank had rehabbed and sold to me with a nothing down loan (didnt even have to use my down payment money). I think I even got a below market interest rate if I remember correctly. It was a buyers market at the time.

(09-20-2022 11:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Hunh

Why can these other folks clearly afford to pay for this first home, but not you?

Market is what the market will bear. Again, if someone’s willing to pay 300,000 for this house, welp, that’s the new market price.

Wise up. Stop whining

To be fair---when most of us were buying our first homes, we were not competing with Wall Street investor buyers like Black Rock. Ive seen them literally buy an entire subdivision from a builder. Plus, there is something to be said for individuals who recognize a bubble and are not willing to buy when they perceive prices are unreasonable.

(09-20-2022 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:41 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Millennials keep voting for leftists which in turn does more harm to their economic prospects, then they want to blame capitalism for all of their issues. Boomer parents also contributed to the softness/narcissistic side of millennial attitudes.

Ask a millennial if they believe everyone has a “right” to go to college, house, and job. They think it’s a crime that their 4 year degree didn’t give them a cushy six figure job. It’s unaffordable to the country and would only exacerbate the issues we’re having (affordability, wages, career paths etc)

I get that younger people tend to vote for social issues, but the Democratic Party is in the business of wrecking the economic system to the point where some want full on communism.

I'm going to need you to tell me when in the last 40 years we've seen a bunch of leftist economic policy at the national level. I've seen corporate tax rates go from 48% in 1980 to 21% now (and most don't even pay close to that). The top marginal tax rate has gone from 70% to 37%. Conservative presidents and the SC have gutted regulations and destroyed most of the New Deal aside from Social Security (which they want to end badly). The awful unions that were corrupt and actually hurting employees have been mostly wiped out. My generation should be drowning in all the trickling from the top, really should be more like a waterfall than a trickle at this point.

There are so many everchanging rules and loopholes, those comparisons are oversimplified. When I was a kid, my dad joined a country club because even that was deductible as a legitimate business expense. No idea what the tax rate was, but I do know that loophole went away at some point. The government is going to get their money one way or another. 70% tax rate when almost every dollar spent is deducted, 37% with a standard deduction, or 17% flat tax basically all equals out. The minutia like tax rates is just a wedge issue to divide us. Focus should be on spending.

(09-20-2022 11:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 11:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Hunh

Why can these other folks clearly afford to pay for this first home, but not you?

Market is what the market will bear. Again, if someone’s willing to pay 300,000 for this house, welp, that’s the new market price.

Wise up. Stop whining

To be fair---when most of us were buying our first homes, we were not competing with Wall Street investor buyers like Black Rock. Ive seen them literally by an entire subdivision from a builder. Plus, there is something to be said for individuals who recognize a bubble and are not willing to buy when they perceive prices are unreasonable.

Cost of living is a lot higher now than when I started out. I lived in a 1BR, albiet modest, but in the best location in town for $450 per month from 2001-2004. Just looked it up and the same place is $1,850 now. Heat, water and electricity were included... all I had to pay for was cable, internet, and about $20/month for service on my flip phone. I made $10/hour working at Dillards and had plenty of money after expenses to date, party, travel, and live pretty comfortably until I could get my foot in the door and find a "real" job. I graduated from college in May 2001 and on July 1 I moved out of my parents house with maybe $500 in my bank account. That same job I had doesn't pay a whole lot more right now.

Only regret I have was not buying a house or condo when things were good (they were going for under $100k). By the time I got married and was "ready" in 2006-2007, the situation was more like today and I wound up paying $285k for my house on a combined ~$65k income and have been stuck ever since. Had I bought the condo when I started out, I would have had well over $100k in equity.

I actually do have some sympathy for the current generation. Tough times. No way you can strike out on your own hear making $400 per week gross without living an a complete schithole and living paycheck to paycheck. At the very least you need roommates or a very good job.

(09-20-2022 11:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 04:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was fortunate to be able to buy my first house on GI Bill with $1 down. I appreciated 25% in two years, and that's where I got the downstroke for my second. I've run up more debt than I wanted a time or two, but have paid it down as quickly as possible when I did.

My current crib is a lakefront house that has doubled in value since I bought it. I don't plan to go anywhere else to retire.

Not saying this is you, but a whole bunch of the same people who trash millennials for being lazy, not working hard, and wanting everything given to them have stories like this of owning their first house while the average home cost now in the state of NC is over 300k. The "gotcha" listed in this thread for homes in the area of Raleigh were both over 300k, needing a lot of work, and the idea that's anywhere near a reasonable cost for "starter homes" is insanity. The stories about needing to save up for a decade and live below your means to be able to maybe afford to buy your first house in your 30's doesn't serve as a tale of "oh you lazy millennials wanting everything given to them" it says to me there needs to be a fundamental change. If your goal is to see more people getting married and having kids having housing completely unaffordable makes that an insane proposition. I wouldn't start having kids if I didn't have a stable housing situation and could have to move from my apartment at any moment because they attempt to jack my rent up 25%.

Hunh

Why can these other folks clearly afford to pay for this first home, but not you?

Market is what the market will bear. Again, if someone’s willing to pay 300,000 for this house, welp, that’s the new market price.

Wise up. Stop whining

Shutting down the economy has consequences.

Blue state cost of living has consequences.

Scaring people from engaging in economic activity has consequences.

Paying people not to work has consequences.

Globalism has consequences.

Unchecked government spending has consequences.


The end.