olyclimber Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I was thinking the same thing Recycled. one particular guy i know is a millionaire several times over, lives in an amazing view home that is severely dated, but doesn't upgrade or fix it up because he will just then have to pay more taxes. he drives a VW Vanagon and an old diesel Mercedes, and was able to live as you're describing you want to...including taking trips like 3-4 months floating the Yukon. i do think there are number of people that end up in the millionaire bracket as a result of their retirement nest egg + their home equity from a home they paid little for back in the 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 great title for a boring thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 i just got my property tax notice in the mail, they are taxing me a full $100,000 more than I paid for the house based on the TAX ASSESSED VALUE. When I bought the house that number was $30,000 LESS than what I paid for the house (market value). Thats a $130,000 increase in 6 years! It will be interesting to see what happens with the relationship between those two values as the market changes. As I understand it you can contest the assessed value, perhaps I should do that based on the real estate market value struggles You should start selling crack from your house. Then contest the assessment based on the fact that your neighbourhood includes a crack house and you are scared to go outside. Your taxes will plummet and you'll be making money from the crack sales too. In fact you can't lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It appears that many Americans could stand to eat a bit less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." harsh. btw 38% of 70K is 2215 / month, not too far off, and it depends what her other debt is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 the house, if not paid for, is a liability on their balance sheet. The house is an asset; any mortgage is a liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It appears that many Americans could stand to eat a bit less Canucks could be a tad less smug and self-congratulatory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." harsh. btw 38% of 70K is 2215 / month, not too far off, and it depends what her other debt is. Fuck did you go to the same school?!?! You are calculating that before any taxes. Happy Bday sucka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It appears that many Americans could stand to eat a bit less Canucks could be a tad less smug and self-congratulatory Canadians lie about their weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." harsh. btw 38% of 70K is 2215 / month, not too far off, and it depends what her other debt is. Fuck did you go to the same school?!?! You are calculating that before any taxes. Happy Bday sucka A quick Google search (from multiple sites) yields the same info: Q: How do I know if I can afford this Mortgage payment? A: There are two ratios you should check: your debt to income ratio, called DTI, which is calculated by dividing your total monthly income (before taxes) by your monthly fixed expenses. Lenders prefer a ratio of 33/38 which means 33% of your monthly income is dedicated to your housing costs and after adding in your other monthly expenses, the debt should not exceed 38% of your monthly income. PITI refers to your total monthly mortgage payment calculated by adding the monthly principal, interest, taxes and insurance for your loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." harsh. btw 38% of 70K is 2215 / month, not too far off, and it depends what her other debt is. Fuck did you go to the same school?!?! You are calculating that before any taxes. Umm, the problem is that she lost her job (loan processor) and has blown through her savings. Whether the mortgage payment was 28 or 38% of a salary she doesn't currently get isn't the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html Making $70k/year with two kids and has a $2500 mortgage? Unless I'm mistaken isn't that over half her income.. assuming she isn't getting support from her ex-husband? I feel sorry for the kids who's mom obviously went to the Erik Zoolander School for Parents who can't Balance Financials Well School. "What's two plus two?" "Jello." harsh. btw 38% of 70K is 2215 / month, not too far off, and it depends what her other debt is. Fuck did you go to the same school?!?! You are calculating that before any taxes. Umm, the problem is that she lost her job (loan processor) and has blown through her savings. Whether the mortgage payment was 28 or 38% of a salary she doesn't currently get isn't the issue. True enough. And maybe she was recently divorced, or took a pay cut, or whatever. We don't know the whole story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It appears that many Americans could stand to eat a bit less Canucks could be a tad less smug and self-congratulatory Canadians lie about their weight. Traditional estimates based on data from more than 130,000 people puts the national obesity rate in 2005 at 15.5 per cent of the population, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday in its Canadian Community Health Survey. But the estimate rises to 24.3 per cent based on a smaller, representative sample of 4,000 people who actually stepped onto a scale and had their height measured by an interviewer. While Canada’s obesity rates have, for the most part, been based on self-reported data, the United States has derived rates from actual measurements of height and weight since the early 1960s. With the directly measured data from the 2004 CCHS, it is possible to compare the prevalence of obesity in the two countries. Age-standardized results show that 29.7% of Americans aged 18 or older were obese in 1999-2002, significantly above the 2004 figure for Canada (23.1%). Most of this difference was attributable to the situation among women. Whereas 23.2% of Canadian women were obese, the figure for American women was 32.6%. As well, each obesity category (Class I, II and III) accounted for a higher percentage of American than Canadian women (Table 3). The difference in obesity rates between American and Canadian women prevailed in all age groups except 45 to 54 and 75 or older (Chart 6). Table 3. Percentage distribution of body mass index (BMI), by sex and race, household population aged 18 or older, Canada excluding territories (2004) and United States (1999-2002) Table 3. Percentage distribution of body mass index (BMI), by sex and race, household population aged 18 or older, Canada excluding territories (2004) and United States (1999-2002) Chart 6. Obesity rates, by age group, female household population aged 18 or older, Canada excluding territories (2004) and United States (1999-2002) Chart 6. Obesity rates, by age group, female household population aged 18 or older, Canada excluding territories (2004) and United States (1999-2002) The obesity rate of Canadian men was 22.9%, significantly below the age-adjusted American rate of 26.7%. However, this was mainly a reflection of Class III obesity: American men were much more likely to have a BMI of 40 or more. The percentages of Canadian and American men whose BMI put them in Class I or II were statistically similar. American men aged 18 to 24, 35 to 44 and 65 to 74 were more likely than their Canadian counterparts to be obese (Chart 7). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I have no idea where the 23.1% vs 24.3% figure discrepancy arises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Anyways, fuck you, fatty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 A quick Google search (from multiple sites) yields the same info: Q: How do I know if I can afford this Mortgage payment? A: There are two ratios you should check: your debt to income ratio, called DTI, which is calculated by dividing your total monthly income (before taxes) by your monthly fixed expenses. Lenders prefer a ratio of 33/38 which means 33% of your monthly income is dedicated to your housing costs and after adding in your other monthly expenses, the debt should not exceed 38% of your monthly income. PITI refers to your total monthly mortgage payment calculated by adding the monthly principal, interest, taxes and insurance for your loan. I remember the numbers differently as 28/36. Some websites still report this. http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscripts/psnl_articles.asp?tab=psn&cat=cat011&ser=ser035&part=par236 http://www.vlender.com/cgi-bin/calc/qualify.cgi http://www.bankrate.com/bosre/green/mtg/basics1-2a.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 A quick Google search (from multiple sites) yields the same info: Q: How do I know if I can afford this Mortgage payment? A: There are two ratios you should check: your debt to income ratio, called DTI, which is calculated by dividing your total monthly income (before taxes) by your monthly fixed expenses. Lenders prefer a ratio of 33/38 which means 33% of your monthly income is dedicated to your housing costs and after adding in your other monthly expenses, the debt should not exceed 38% of your monthly income. PITI refers to your total monthly mortgage payment calculated by adding the monthly principal, interest, taxes and insurance for your loan. I remember the numbers differently as 28/36. Some websites still report this. http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscripts/psnl_articles.asp?tab=psn&cat=cat011&ser=ser035&part=par236 http://www.vlender.com/cgi-bin/calc/qualify.cgi http://www.bankrate.com/bosre/green/mtg/basics1-2a.asp Still, as you point out, the woman's problem is she lost her job. I don't think many of us would last long with a mortgage and no job. Maybe Jon wants to mock the woman for not having 3-6 months of liquid assets in an emergency fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I don't care if the lenders want 28/38... 36/38... 32/24/36 as long as she's got some back... that's not the point and this is of course coming from the industry that helped create this fucking mess. Her monthly take home income after taxes was something around $4500, and over half of that was going towards her mortgage. How solvent can someone be in a position like this? Don't get me wrong I feel terrible for her because obviously someone wasn't looking out for her, but this is a classic example of what is going on, someone that is earning a good wage but has overextended themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I don't care if the lenders want 28/38... 36/38... 32/24/36 as long as she's got some back... that's not the point and this is of course coming from the industry that helped create this fucking mess. Her monthly take home income after taxes was something around $4500, and over half of that was going towards her mortgage. How solvent can someone be in a position like this? Don't get me wrong I feel terrible for her because obviously someone wasn't looking out for her, but this is a classic example of what is going on, someone that is earning a good wage but has overextended themselves. The article didn't say she couldn't make mortgage payments WITH a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Maybe when she got laid off she should have sold her house and moved to Alberta to work in the tar sands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 :: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The article didn't say she couldn't make mortgage payments WITH a job. I understand your point. My point is that she wasn't solvent enough to save enough money to have enough savings in the event she did lose her job. I'm done debating this it's been fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The article didn't say she couldn't make mortgage payments WITH a job. I understand your point. My point is that she wasn't solvent enough to save enough money to have enough savings in the event she did lose her job. I'm done debating this it's been fun. Well, she was "estranged" from her husband. Their household income may have been much more recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I don't care if the lenders want 28/38... 36/38... 32/24/36 as long as she's got some back... that's not the point and this is of course coming from the industry that helped create this fucking mess. Her monthly take home income after taxes was something around $4500, and over half of that was going towards her mortgage. How solvent can someone be in a position like this? Don't get me wrong I feel terrible for her because obviously someone wasn't looking out for her, but this is a classic example of what is going on, someone that is earning a good wage but has overextended themselves. Actually, with two kids and ~$30k in mortgage interest deductions, she pays very little in federal taxes on a $70k income. Only a few thousand a year. payroll deductions for SS/etc would be intact though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.