Author Topic: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...  (Read 21749 times)

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« on: November 24, 2015, 04:47:47 PM »
"Customer Spotlight: Chelsea Hartmann
 
Chelsea Hartmann decided by the age of 25 she was going to own a home, she bought it at 24.
 
"I thought if I have a mortgage at 25, I would have it for at least 30 years. I would be done paying by 55, which means I would be able to save 10 years for my retirement. I felt like if I do this right, I'll be okay."

I nearly head-desked. This is from a non-profit that focuses on getting working class people into homeownership.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2015, 05:06:48 PM »
Hey - that's how alot of people I've talked to were raised. Get into a house early so you aren't paying rent. And paying it off early seems impossible. Still, gotta have a place to live.

They don't consider that compound interest works for you or against you.


marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7192
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2015, 03:36:48 AM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28380
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2015, 03:56:27 AM »

Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

No one takes the full 30 years cause they move.

What "many" get less than halfway in money-wise (15 years) and then pays off the whole thing in one chunk?  I'd guess less than 0.1% do that.

People either prepay what they can all along, and get it repaid at some random point, or they never get it paid off (via continual moving/refinancing/upgrading/etc.).  But paying 15 years and then clearing the whole thing?  I don't think so.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3647
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2015, 07:10:46 AM »
Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know.

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2015, 08:04:51 AM »
She will likely end up in foreclosure. Probably one of these 3% down loans, living check to check, tapping home equity to look like you are doing well, vacation, cars, etc.

Will likely see the house at a foreclosure option in a few years.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2015, 08:13:17 AM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 08:38:21 AM by Joe Average »

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2015, 08:45:32 AM »
She will likely end up in foreclosure. Probably one of these 3% down loans, living check to check, tapping home equity to look like you are doing well, vacation, cars, etc.

Will likely see the house at a foreclosure option in a few years.

That's likely not to happen luckily at least because this nonprofit in a 20 year history has a .5% delinquency rate, including through the recession. They're pretty good about prepping you for the financial burden of a home, only taking out what you can afford, making you save for at least a 10% down payment (and most folks don't need to pay property taxes for 10 years because of a low-income exclusion.) They only put people into specific houses that have a system of support for homeownership.

That being said, they've fundamentally failed to teach the mechanics of compound interest here, sadly. Which is a bummer.

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2015, 08:52:59 AM »
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2015, 09:29:07 AM »
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2015, 09:51:49 AM »
Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know.

Absolutely. I have several clients who are financial wrecks. They have good income, but they spend every penny. Getting them to save or plan for anything is like pulling teeth.

But then they buy a house and suddenly paying their mortgage is their #1 priority. They would never even consider missing a payment.

I have come to accept that no matter how much financial advice I give to some of my clients - a house is the only net worth they'll ever have.

eljefe-speaks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2015, 10:29:44 AM »
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."

Bravo!

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2015, 10:38:38 AM »
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."

Bravo!

Seconded!

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2015, 10:54:00 AM »
I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Just as my parents made it so I had no idea what the deal was with student loans and paid for my college outright, my goal is to go further and have my future kids have no idea what the deal is with mortgages.  Make them as foreign a concept as payday loans.

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2015, 10:58:23 AM »
Amazing, I immigrated here, and stood on my own two feet since 18, and make more than any of my friends who was born here with every advantage while I was at every disadvantage. Seems to me success is about the individual and their efforts, not liberal excuses as to how these people are held down, followed by taking money from those who made it and giving it to those who haven't, or cutting them a break on taxes. But go on cheering an ideology that punishes success and rewards sloth and failure, then claims they couldn't succeed because the rich man held them down, lol.  You're totally right, you've convinced me...

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2015, 11:04:51 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2015, 11:15:18 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2015, 11:31:18 AM »
I'm not really going to get in an argument about working class struggles with you, Bearded Man. It's clear that you think that you bootstrapped your way up (not gaining any advantages from the mortgage interest exemptions on your property, of course, because you're a self-made man, obviously. And you didn't have any advantages that lead to you being able to immigrate to the US at 18 years old, like your country of origin or family connections in the US or education level that made a visa process successful, because of course immigration to the US just works by showing up), and that there's no possible way that societal factors could play into someone else not being able to replicate your success.

And the wealthy class clearly get no "cutting them a break on taxes"- nothing like the capital gains tax exclusion or the mortgage interest tax credit that means my partner who makes 4x what I do and owns 3 houses pays less in taxes than I do.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 11:34:00 AM by monstermonster »

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2015, 01:23:24 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

Megma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2015, 01:42:08 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2015, 02:08:08 PM »
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.

Just to be clear, As OP I fully support the low-income housing nonprofit (and am also not a - ugh- "welfare queen mom" but in fact am a hard-working, educated person with no debt in a crazy rental and housing market who qualifies for this assistance) I just wish that understanding of compound interest had been part of their required education series because there's some significant flaws in the logic that the last 10 years of your working career- assuming the health and other circumstances to get there - should be your first time saving for retirement.

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2015, 02:19:28 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

If women fathered children.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2015, 02:30:40 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

If women fathered children.
Ah, perhaps it's not biology but english grammar I need to learn...

Megma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2015, 06:07:30 PM »
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.

Just to be clear, As OP I fully support the low-income housing nonprofit (and am also not a - ugh- "welfare queen mom" but in fact am a hard-working, educated person with no debt in a crazy rental and housing market who qualifies for this assistance) I just wish that understanding of compound interest had been part of their required education series because there's some significant flaws in the logic that the last 10 years of your working career- assuming the health and other circumstances to get there - should be your first time saving for retirement.

I got that from you post OP, I was more responding to the comments of bearded man. 😃 there were clearly some issues with the flyer and one of the challenges with affordable home ownership programs is they do sometimes fail to educate people on the true costs or put them in homes they cannot afford.



MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3513
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2015, 07:46:14 PM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world.
I agree.  Everyone doesn't have the income or the drive to get ahead in the ways promoted on this website, but pretty much everyone can manage to pay off a house.  With a paid-off house, living on Social Security in retirement looks a whole lot more do-able. 
But then they buy a house and suddenly paying their mortgage is their #1 priority. They would never even consider missing a payment.

I have come to accept that no matter how much financial advice I give to some of my clients - a house is the only net worth they'll ever have.
Yes, to too many people saving for the future seems like a vague commitment, something that can be skipped this month since the car broke down ... and next month since it's Christmas ... and again next June when we're going on vacation.  But a mortgage is a bill!  You have to pay that!  It's a form of structure for those who need structure to force them to save.
Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 
Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.
Also wrong.  Teen pregnancies are down in number, likely because of the increase in availability and acceptability of birth control pills and Norplant implants.  I used to teach 2-3 pregnant girls every year; I haven't taught one myself now in 2-3 years.  Almost all pregnant teens in my high school are seniors (so 17-18 years old).  I'm not saying 13 year olds don't get pregnant, but they are very rare.


kenner

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2015, 07:43:31 AM »

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.

Avidconsumer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2015, 07:34:30 AM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17640
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2015, 08:06:16 AM »

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.

Holy shit, that is disgraceful.

honeybbq

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1423
  • Location: Seattle
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2015, 09:38:25 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

"Fathering" semantics aside, for some reason, this thought process was more interesting to me than the actual OP.... lol. I have friends who have had children less than 1 year apart. Just need one of those to be twins and BANG!

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2015, 09:41:54 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
I think you need to take a class on basic common sense. I said she has three kids with two different men. As in, two kids with one man, and one kid with another. Nice try at the insult though. Just exposed your own ignorance. Ah, bravo, you've convinced me.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 09:48:53 AM by Bearded Man »

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2015, 09:45:14 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.
Oh look, another person who emotes. Everyone is held sown by rich people. They can't get ahead because of rich people, who make better decisions and educate themselves instead of popping out kids they cant support, criminal lifestyles, etc. Bravo...you've convinced me. Right along with that "biology class" genius.

I have a tenant with several kids, each from a different man. Had her first at 16, dropped out of high school. Yep, it's Bill Gates' fault she is poor. Not her own. Brilliant. Lol. What a bunch of emotional people.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 09:59:21 AM by Bearded Man »

Hank Sinatra

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2015, 10:10:02 AM »
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Isn't this just Business 101?  The Rich don't work. They take money by way of  having ownership rights to the productive capacity of workers. And then pay for favorable legislation exempting themselves from taxes. Every business is set up on exactly this mechanism.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17640
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2015, 10:16:59 AM »
Did you never make a bad decision at 16?  I sure did, but fortunately none of them ended up hobbling me for the rest of my life.  Absolutely, her decisions are her own to make, and she clearly screwed up.  But those decisions have been made.  If we want her to become a productive member of society and be able to raise those children to be productive members of society we need to try to help lift her out of that situation.

Having a giggle about how hard her life is because she is doing her best to support the family that she now has, and trying to punish her further for past mistakes isn't as much a reflection on her character as your own.  When we are blessed with so much, it's sad to read such greedy and mean-spirited posts as that.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 11:29:52 AM by GuitarStv »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6303
  • Location: Avalon
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2015, 11:12:34 AM »
Also, a girl having children at age 16 may well have been the victim of sexual abuse, perhaps from the fathers of her children and perhaps not.  Studies on prostitution show that a high proportion of prostitutes were subject to sexual abuse and/or underage sex.  Even if not subject to obvious sexual abuse (I would tend to argue that unprotected sex with an underage child is by definition abuse), she has probably had poor parenting, poor life models and poor health care options.   Most of us here have had enough levels of privilege to make it difficult to recognise the devastating impacts of their absence.

franklin w. dixon

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2015, 12:25:22 PM »
Also, a girl having children at age 16 may well have been the victim of sexual abuse, perhaps from the fathers of her children and perhaps not.  Studies on prostitution show that a high proportion of prostitutes were subject to sexual abuse and/or underage sex.  Even if not subject to obvious sexual abuse (I would tend to argue that unprotected sex with an underage child is by definition abuse), she has probably had poor parenting, poor life models and poor health care options.   Most of us here have had enough levels of privilege to make it difficult to recognise the devastating impacts of their absence.
It's very important to me that I, a rich adult, mock children on the internet. Haha! Fuck the young people! And poor people! They are morally inferior to myself! As you can see, I'm extremely well-adjusted. I also have an uncle who works at Nintendo and a girlfriend who you can't meet because she lives in Canada. She's a gymnast.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5536
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2015, 01:21:52 PM »
It's very important to me that I, a rich adult, mock children on the internet. Haha! Fuck the young people! And poor people! They are morally inferior to myself! As you can see, I'm extremely well-adjusted. I also have an uncle who works at Nintendo and a girlfriend who you can't meet because she lives in Canada. She's a gymnast.
[/quote]

This is a picture of her. No, it's not the picture that came with the frame! I'm going to see her this summer.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2015, 10:44:05 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
I think you need to take a class on basic common sense. I said she has three kids with two different men. As in, two kids with one man, and one kid with another. Nice try at the insult though. Just exposed your own ignorance. Ah, bravo, you've convinced me.

You said she had three kids when she was 16, which is confusing unless she had triplets (you also said she fathered them, which I think is what horsepoor was referring to). More important, I think, is that whatever lousy decisions she made, she IS working to support her kids and she is ambitious to better herself. That's not someone who deserves abuse.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3513
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2015, 08:05:32 AM »
Holy shit, that is disgraceful.
Yeah, but it's not representative of what I see in the actual high school where I work. 

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2015, 08:50:25 AM »
Holy shit, that is disgraceful.
Yeah, but it's not representative of what I see in the actual high school where I work.
Anecdotal to anecdotal:

But it is representative of what I see in the actual shelter for young mothers where I worked for the first 5 years of my career or the alternative high school I work with now, where 70% of the kids are parents. There's a full range of sex education unfortunately, and while it's getting better, those that are not in school consistently because of homelessness, the substance abuse of their parents, their own addiction, or because they went to "grown-up jail" (which plenty of under-18's get sent to) often don't receive sex education even if their state allows it.

The state I worked in requires parental notification to acquire condoms at a supermarket. CONDOMS. Talk about barriers to getting sex education.

No disrespect to the amazing in-roads that educators like yourself have made on getting the right information to students when they need it. And I'm very glad it's improving in your classroom. Unfortunately, lawmakers still have plenty of opportunity to prevent students from getting sex education in the classroom in much of the country, if the rest of their life circumstances doesn't get in the way.

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2861
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2015, 09:19:36 AM »
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2015, 11:34:03 AM »
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.

*cheers*

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5470
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2015, 07:55:03 PM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.

This seems to work surprisingly well in some other cultures where the parents buying a house/apartment for their child is considered a key requirement of having their kid be considered marriage material. I think the problem in the US would be that, because buying a house without a mortgage is so unusual, the next generation would be more likely to see a mortgage-free house as a windfall, rather than a reminder that they should probably already be starting to stash money away against the day their own children are ready to get married.

Avidconsumer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2015, 02:02:32 PM »
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.

This seems to work surprisingly well in some other cultures where the parents buying a house/apartment for their child is considered a key requirement of having their kid be considered marriage material. I think the problem in the US would be that, because buying a house without a mortgage is so unusual, the next generation would be more likely to see a mortgage-free house as a windfall, rather than a reminder that they should probably already be starting to stash money away against the day their own children are ready to get married.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3513
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2015, 06:04:16 PM »
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation. 

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2015, 10:09:14 AM »
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.

Handing off the family land, house, business, etc. was actually the norm throughout most of human history. Parents taught their children all the useful skills they'd need to survive (be it house cleaning, cooking, weaving, riding a horse, working the front desk of a shop or stall in the marketplace, hunting, whatever) and prepared them to earn the best kind of living available. Generally that meant passing on tricks of the trade, so if your dad was a blacksmith, you'd most likely grow up to be a blacksmith too. Once people realized that kids learn better and are treated more fairly by people besides their parents, apprenticeship or fostering systems developed. But until very recently, people had no reason to *not* expect to inherit whatever their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors built up over time. The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2015, 10:54:27 AM »
What a bunch of emotional people.
You do realize virtually all your posts contain emotional language, right? Negativity toward government. Negativity toward taxes. Scorn for anyone who makes inferior choices to your own. Value judgments implied through comparisons. It's there virtually every time I see your name on a post.

The fact that these judgments are based on objective realities in no way removes the emotional loading you attach to them. And I'm not saying you're right or wrong, in general or in any specific case. But you (and I) are no less emotional than the bleeding hearts, even when employing logic to justify our stance. (and that's OK)

I think (and who knows, I've been wrong before and will be again) that what chafes you about these objections is a conflict in values, not the level of emotion or reason involved (and that's OK too). Most analysis indicates that the majority of political and philosophical divisions have those at their core, as opposed to the informational or sentimental factors their proponents like to cite. And reasonable people can disagree on what is most important. But seeing the conflict for what it is, is key to managing it in a civil and rational way.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8816
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2015, 12:30:39 PM »
Did you never make a bad decision at 16?  I sure did, but fortunately none of them ended up hobbling me for the rest of my life.  Absolutely, her decisions are her own to make, and she clearly screwed up.  But those decisions have been made.  If we want her to become a productive member of society and be able to raise those children to be productive members of society we need to try to help lift her out of that situation.

Having a giggle about how hard her life is because she is doing her best to support the family that she now has, and trying to punish her further for past mistakes isn't as much a reflection on her character as your own.  When we are blessed with so much, it's sad to read such greedy and mean-spirited posts as that.
This was very well said.

It seems to be very easy to judge on these items.  I remember visiting home and having pizza and some beer with my favorite cousin when I was in my early 20's.  My much younger cousin was there at the same time, off in the corner with friends.  She was 17 and pregnant.  My other cousin and I spent quite a bit of time discussing how she basically effed up and ruined her life, the dummy.  (Note: this is a rural area.)  I wondered about my poor aunt, who had already raised 6 kids in 38 years (her oldest and youngest, the pregnant one, were 19 years apart in age). 

Well, darned it if she didn't prove us wrong.  She graduated from HS, had the baby at 18, got married.  Went to college, and grad school, and got a PhD in physics.  She's now in her mid-30's and she and her husband are empty nesters, kid is in college on scholarship majoring in engineering.  But my cousin?  Smart.  Top of her class in HS, etc.  Got married.  Had a supportive family (lived at home, and my aunt helped with child care because she was self-employed).  No drug abuse, alcohol abuse, homelessness.

How do we move forward without punishing people for past mistakes, or even worse - punishing the children (who had no choice in the matter), and perpetuating the cycle?

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15096
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2015, 05:32:20 PM »
People are proud of their century farms and 4 generation farms around here.  And if you knew your farm was going to be supporting your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, you took care of the land.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2015, 07:51:04 PM »
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

No kidding. My wife and I bought our first house immediately after I graduated college (before I got a job), and were able to get about $20K in assistance from the city because we were qualifying based only on her income (~$30K at the time). My future income as an engineer would have blown that option out of the water, but I wasn't technically employed as an engineer yet and thus qualified (and no, I didn't hide the fact that I had good future prospects when we applied to the program). And then we got another $8K from the Feds (the 2009 first-time-buyer tax credit) and got to buy in near the bottom of the market. Moreover, we're currently in the middle of a refinance and got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)

In other words, not everybody is a proverbial welfare mom; at least some of the people using these programs know what they're doing, and are making out like bandits. Most people using the program are somewhere in between.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.
The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.

I had been thinking that the widening wealth gap in the last few decades had been due to things like changes in tax rates and pro-corporate court rulings, but now I'm wondering if this might be a significant factor too.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2015, 07:56:07 PM »
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.