Debt that can't be discharged is slavery. The stories that make the news are the people 5 years out of college, paying back the massive debt, then they have a financial problem. An illness that's not well covered by insurance is a common one. They lose their house for it, and rack up piles of bills, and when they finally have no other choice, they declare bankruptcy, and all they are left with for years of effort is a pile of student debt.
They'd have been better off paying off the student debt, rather than medical bills. But the last time I suggested that non-dischargeable debt should be a higher priority, I was told that was fraud and would end them up in jail. So say Slashdot legal experts.
don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting.
Counting is math. Every place I've lived was paid off in under 5 years. My current home was bought under separate circumstances with no relation to previous finances, so it's a 30-year mortgage (same rate as a 10 year, so why reduce my options?), but it'll be paid off in 10 years. I'm 2 years in. You are justifying a small portion of your finances in a manner that's WRONG for most people, then asserting it's best. IT might be best for you, but it's likely not for anyone else.
Why are you so emotionally invested in justifying your personal investment strategy to strangers? We don't care, we know you are wrong, and we are going about our lives without thinking about it any more. Why can't you?
put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.
Sounds more like you are almost realizing you are wrong, so you are getting more irrational and starting to insult the posters pointing out your illogic, rather than considering the statements thoughtfully.
you've presumed, incorrectly, one VERY major thing: that I don't borrow against the equity in my home. You've added an investment on their side, but not on mine. Do the exact same calculation again, but this time have me borrow from my own home equity.
You still lose, as a second mortgage will have a worse rate than a first, so you'll have less in savings than they will.
So give me the same investment. As I pay down my mortgage, use the built-up equity to invest in that same nominal investment. Because I'm paying down my mortgage much faster, I'm building up my equity much faster, so I'm investing into that nominal investment much more.
You are making the same error you accuse others of. They can apply the "savings" to the mortgage and get the exact same results as you, so you are in no better shape. Or, they can wait to the end of the 10 years, and pay the whole thing off, or borrow against their investments (though less common these days, I've done it back in the '80s before the string of financial crises started).
But the more interest I pay on loans, the less I have to invest.
Yet, you are willing to spend money on loans to have money to invest. Which puts your plan as no better than theirs, but fits your personal beliefs better. There is *no* scenario where your plan is better. You are arguing to have the least amount against your house as possible, while stating you'll borrow as much against your house as possible. Your "plan" is no different than someone taking an interest-only loan when buying it, then investing the payment savings into better investments. But you are so emotionally invested in being right, that you don't even understand that your plan is internally inconsistent. IT's just argumentative.
You've forgotten that I can borrow against my own home equity and invest that money.
All a mortgage is is a home equity loan. So how is your second-mortgage any different than other's first, other than second mortgages usually have worse rates than the primary?
We didn't "forget", we just assumed some logical consistency. Silly us.
You're simply paying more interest. You're losing money. But you're comparing your 30 years of interest with 10 years of investment against my 10 years of interest -- of course yours is going to be better. You should be comparing it against my 10 years of interest plus 9 years of growing investment. Then you lose.
They were comparing apples and apples. You lose. So you are trying to convince us that an apple is a red orange, and that we are comparing apples and oranges. It isn't working.
What people actually do is sell at $900 in 2024, and buy at $1.5M in 2024. If they'd have stretched, rather than buying a 2014-450, they could have gotten a 2014-750 that becomes the 2024-1.5M. How do your numbers work out for that?
then you got a 67% return on your investment over ten years. That's a pretty shitty return for a long-term investment. You could have invested in many things that would give you a much better return, and much more reliably too.
Name 3. I'll get you started: Stocks.
And it's still an investment, even if only for your children who sell it when you die.
But that's not the whole story. He's focusing on one number so much that he's missing out on the bigger picture. The guy that got the house for 10% more for 3x as long will pay much more back over that time, but in that time, the houses are appreciating. Does the more expensive house appreciate more? Of course they do. So, where in that balance is his plan? If the house was sold 10 years later, paying off the mortgage (if any), who has the most cash in their pocket at the end? Often, the 30 year mortgage guy does. So GP is focusing so much on repayment cost that he's not thinking about profit. I'd rather have profit. His math is right, but his priorities are wrong. If he's looking at retiring in 10 years and living in that house indefinitely, then maybe he'd have a good plan for giving up total profit for locking in a retirement location and optimizing cash flow 10 years out. But someone without some sentimental attachment to the location should be looking at profit, not some sub-metric he thinks is more important.
You made a bad financial decision. I bought more house than I could afford. I mortgaged it for 30 years. It went up more over that period than I paid in interest. Land is fixed. You can't inflate land. It'll *always* beat inflation. You should stretch yourself with land whenever you can. My primary residence went up 15% per year for 3 years straight, though I like it here and am not willing to move yet, or I'd have cashed out at a great time, and downsized into something that will appreciate as fast or faster over the next 5 years.
The most frustrating part is that I didn't make it up. Even at the bank, when I applied for or renew my mortgage, they give you the year-by-year breakdown of interest and absolute dollars. All you need to do is to look at the bottom line of the chart. On mine, it says $242'000 repaid. On their, it says $330'000 repaid.
And in a stable market, they'll be better off than you.
Why is who signed it always so important? Tell me the party membership of the namesakes for that bill. What, guilt for supporting the party that wrote, sponsored and passed it?
Also, the states used to pay much of the cost of state universities. Then the economy slowed, and education is always the first to get the ax when budgets are tight (and by tight, I mean heavily in debt).
Not at A&M. The stadium holds more people than the area around the university (at least, when I was last there). They don't let the soccer team play on it. It's sacred. Football only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
And I was surprised to hear they were planning a "new" stadium, but reading up, it looks like it's just a $500 million upgrade to the existing stadium. That makes more sense, as the 85,000 stadium has seen crowds over 90,000.
Used to be? Law and Puryear may have been torn down, but Walton and Hart are still up and available.
http://reslife.tamu.edu/reshalls/ramp
The dorms don't lose money, even the nice ones. Of course, they cost more than the cinder block barracks.
I wonder if the jello salad has been replace with caviar.
Go drop past Sbisa and see what's on offer. Last I tried the food (about 20 years ago), the luxo condos had the same meal plan. So live in luxo, and eat in the 1912 military dining hall.
Degrees aren't worthless. You have to do papers, and work with teams and in a structured environment. There's a lot of non-academic skills taught at college. Yes, even with a philosophy degree.
The problem is they trusted the "crowd" to put up bad information, but not to pull it down. The inconsistent crowd trust is frustrating, and is the source of this man's issue.
When I was young and naive, I thought the FBI investigated crimes. When I had someone obviously trying to scam me (over state lines) I called the FBI to report it. Of course, I was told "if you haven't lost any money, we will not investigate, just don't send the guy any money". Explaining that he probably did it 1000 times and that I was a living honeypot that could help them catch someone who did take money from others, the FBI hung up on me. But yes, I called the national crime number, and was told to call my local office. The local office didn't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't heard of any such things at Kyle Field, but maybe there are some, they didn't show up under "other events" on the Wiki page.
Don't forget the massive cuts in state funding of education.
Debt that can't be discharged is slavery. The stories that make the news are the people 5 years out of college, paying back the massive debt, then they have a financial problem. An illness that's not well covered by insurance is a common one. They lose their house for it, and rack up piles of bills, and when they finally have no other choice, they declare bankruptcy, and all they are left with for years of effort is a pile of student debt.
They'd have been better off paying off the student debt, rather than medical bills. But the last time I suggested that non-dischargeable debt should be a higher priority, I was told that was fraud and would end them up in jail. So say Slashdot legal experts.
don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting.
Counting is math. Every place I've lived was paid off in under 5 years. My current home was bought under separate circumstances with no relation to previous finances, so it's a 30-year mortgage (same rate as a 10 year, so why reduce my options?), but it'll be paid off in 10 years. I'm 2 years in. You are justifying a small portion of your finances in a manner that's WRONG for most people, then asserting it's best. IT might be best for you, but it's likely not for anyone else.
Why are you so emotionally invested in justifying your personal investment strategy to strangers? We don't care, we know you are wrong, and we are going about our lives without thinking about it any more. Why can't you?
put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.
Sounds more like you are almost realizing you are wrong, so you are getting more irrational and starting to insult the posters pointing out your illogic, rather than considering the statements thoughtfully.
you've presumed, incorrectly, one VERY major thing: that I don't borrow against the equity in my home. You've added an investment on their side, but not on mine. Do the exact same calculation again, but this time have me borrow from my own home equity.
You still lose, as a second mortgage will have a worse rate than a first, so you'll have less in savings than they will.
So give me the same investment. As I pay down my mortgage, use the built-up equity to invest in that same nominal investment. Because I'm paying down my mortgage much faster, I'm building up my equity much faster, so I'm investing into that nominal investment much more.
You are making the same error you accuse others of. They can apply the "savings" to the mortgage and get the exact same results as you, so you are in no better shape. Or, they can wait to the end of the 10 years, and pay the whole thing off, or borrow against their investments (though less common these days, I've done it back in the '80s before the string of financial crises started).
But the more interest I pay on loans, the less I have to invest.
Yet, you are willing to spend money on loans to have money to invest. Which puts your plan as no better than theirs, but fits your personal beliefs better. There is *no* scenario where your plan is better. You are arguing to have the least amount against your house as possible, while stating you'll borrow as much against your house as possible. Your "plan" is no different than someone taking an interest-only loan when buying it, then investing the payment savings into better investments. But you are so emotionally invested in being right, that you don't even understand that your plan is internally inconsistent. IT's just argumentative.
Right now, I'm paying 2.24%. If I were paying 4%, I'd be burning $2'500 per year, compounded!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You've forgotten that I can borrow against my own home equity and invest that money.
All a mortgage is is a home equity loan. So how is your second-mortgage any different than other's first, other than second mortgages usually have worse rates than the primary?
We didn't "forget", we just assumed some logical consistency. Silly us.
You're simply paying more interest. You're losing money. But you're comparing your 30 years of interest with 10 years of investment against my 10 years of interest -- of course yours is going to be better. You should be comparing it against my 10 years of interest plus 9 years of growing investment. Then you lose.
They were comparing apples and apples. You lose. So you are trying to convince us that an apple is a red orange, and that we are comparing apples and oranges. It isn't working.
Isn't 67% over 10 years roughly the same as 5% per year for 10 years?
then you got a 67% return on your investment over ten years. That's a pretty shitty return for a long-term investment. You could have invested in many things that would give you a much better return, and much more reliably too.
Name 3. I'll get you started: Stocks.
And it's still an investment, even if only for your children who sell it when you die.
But that's not the whole story. He's focusing on one number so much that he's missing out on the bigger picture. The guy that got the house for 10% more for 3x as long will pay much more back over that time, but in that time, the houses are appreciating. Does the more expensive house appreciate more? Of course they do. So, where in that balance is his plan? If the house was sold 10 years later, paying off the mortgage (if any), who has the most cash in their pocket at the end? Often, the 30 year mortgage guy does. So GP is focusing so much on repayment cost that he's not thinking about profit. I'd rather have profit. His math is right, but his priorities are wrong. If he's looking at retiring in 10 years and living in that house indefinitely, then maybe he'd have a good plan for giving up total profit for locking in a retirement location and optimizing cash flow 10 years out. But someone without some sentimental attachment to the location should be looking at profit, not some sub-metric he thinks is more important.
The most frustrating part is that I didn't make it up. Even at the bank, when I applied for or renew my mortgage, they give you the year-by-year breakdown of interest and absolute dollars. All you need to do is to look at the bottom line of the chart. On mine, it says $242'000 repaid. On their, it says $330'000 repaid.
And in a stable market, they'll be better off than you.
Why is who signed it always so important? Tell me the party membership of the namesakes for that bill. What, guilt for supporting the party that wrote, sponsored and passed it?
Also, the states used to pay much of the cost of state universities. Then the economy slowed, and education is always the first to get the ax when budgets are tight (and by tight, I mean heavily in debt).
Not at A&M. The stadium holds more people than the area around the university (at least, when I was last there). They don't let the soccer team play on it. It's sacred. Football only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
And I was surprised to hear they were planning a "new" stadium, but reading up, it looks like it's just a $500 million upgrade to the existing stadium. That makes more sense, as the 85,000 stadium has seen crowds over 90,000.
Dorm's used to be cinder block barracks.
Used to be? Law and Puryear may have been torn down, but Walton and Hart are still up and available.
http://reslife.tamu.edu/reshalls/ramp
The dorms don't lose money, even the nice ones. Of course, they cost more than the cinder block barracks.
I wonder if the jello salad has been replace with caviar.
Go drop past Sbisa and see what's on offer. Last I tried the food (about 20 years ago), the luxo condos had the same meal plan. So live in luxo, and eat in the 1912 military dining hall.
No, schools can lose accreditation for expanding.
The poor pay little in taxes, and don't subsidize anything for the middle class.
Degrees aren't worthless. You have to do papers, and work with teams and in a structured environment. There's a lot of non-academic skills taught at college. Yes, even with a philosophy degree.
The problem is they trusted the "crowd" to put up bad information, but not to pull it down. The inconsistent crowd trust is frustrating, and is the source of this man's issue.
Where do you live where the goal of a cop isn't to put everyone behind bars? The only question left in the US is "who first?"
What's better, a pic of your crime, or a pic of your crime with a bunch of dumb cops around, looking perplexed?
When I was young and naive, I thought the FBI investigated crimes. When I had someone obviously trying to scam me (over state lines) I called the FBI to report it. Of course, I was told "if you haven't lost any money, we will not investigate, just don't send the guy any money". Explaining that he probably did it 1000 times and that I was a living honeypot that could help them catch someone who did take money from others, the FBI hung up on me. But yes, I called the national crime number, and was told to call my local office. The local office didn't care.
Sounds like some members of NCPPR wanted to pump and dump Apple, and got told to go fuck themselves.
No, most investors aren't humans. They are fabricated legal entities with no morals, no brain, and no conscience.