PhillyKev 0 #51 July 1, 2004 QuoteThey're all OK except Delaware. The one from Delaware is the guy who came up with our proprietary stock valuation formula that has convinced people to give us 15Billion dollars of their money to manage Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #52 July 1, 2004 Quoteproprietary stock valuation formula Is that the stock picking chimps you have locked in the back?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #53 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteproprietary stock valuation formula Is that the stock picking chimps you have locked in the back? Yeah....we used to hype them up with coke and have a bunch of flashing strobe lights in the room. But they just kept typing up an identical copy of Bush's budget proposal for some strange reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #54 July 1, 2004 >So whats your solution, Bill. Is it fair to cause someone in their 20 to 40 to >have to sacrifice their income to support an elderly person who for what >ever reason failed to plan for themselves? Yes. There are lots of ways to cut spending; one of those ways should not be letting elderly US citizens die. Wal-mart subsidies, oil company tax breaks and airline bailouts should be eliminated way, way before we ever consider letting people die to save some money. >The costs just keep going higher and higher. That's the nature of both economies (inflation) and medical care (we can do more as we learn more; people live longer and thus need more medical care.) One idea is to maintain a two-tier system, which is what we effectively have now. Ensure that basic health care and emergency services are free, and provide extraordinary care (heart transplants) on a paid or partially subsidized basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 July 1, 2004 Quote>So whats your solution, Bill. Is it fair to cause someone in their 20 to 40 to >have to sacrifice their income to support an elderly person who for what >ever reason failed to plan for themselves? Yes. There are lots of ways to cut spending; one of those ways should not be letting elderly US citizens die. Wal-mart subsidies, oil company tax breaks and airline bailouts should be eliminated way, way before we ever consider letting people die to save some money. >The costs just keep going higher and higher. That's the nature of both economies (inflation) and medical care (we can do more as we learn more; people live longer and thus need more medical care.) One idea is to maintain a two-tier system, which is what we effectively have now. Ensure that basic health care and emergency services are free, and provide extraordinary care (heart transplants) on a paid or partially subsidized basis. And not one mention of encouraging personal responsibility in your entire post. This is one of the main problems I have with Liberals. Liberals want everything dictated by the govt. to relieve people of their own responsibilities to themselves and society. Why do I have to continue to pay more and more because someone else lived their lives buying new TVs, automobiles, computers, etc and never restrained themselves and said "I can't afford (insert favorite new toy) because I need to save?" When is this attitude going to be addressed by any Major Liberal Politician? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 July 1, 2004 Quote Then my hats off to you if you are still paying that much in taxes after what seems to be a pretty good plan of diversified investments. I would still disagree with you about renting vs buying though. I bought my current house last year for $375.000. and it's worth $450,000. right now. Thats $75,000. in appreciation in 1 year plus the tax deduction. That totals to a gain of close to $95,000 in one year and thats just on my primary residence. Plus a low interest equity loan is available if I need the money. Or I could have rented a townhouse for $2500. per month and paid someone elses mortgage with no appreciation for myself. Which works out great in hindsight, but that appreciation is based on historically low interest rates that won't last. Anyone buying a house on less than a 5 year time frame is rolling the dice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #57 July 1, 2004 QuoteI would still disagree with you about renting vs buying though. I bought my current house last year for $375.000. and it's worth $450,000. right now. Thats $75,000. in appreciation in 1 year plus the tax deduction. That totals to a gain of close to $95,000 in one year and thats just on my primary residence. Plus a low interest equity loan is available if I need the money. Or I could have rented a townhouse for $2500. per month and paid someone elses mortgage with no appreciation for myself. Difference being that A) While the burbs are still appreciating, Philly has reached a peak in real estate prices and have been flat for the past 6 months. With interest rates increasing, they're going to start falling. Plus I only pay $1000/month for rent. Trust me, I'm not foolhardy or reckless with my money. I've run the numbers. For me to break even between renting or buying based on my rent now and buying a $300,000 house (the cheapest I could find in the area at a minimum of livability for me), figuring in property tax, municpal services, and insurance I would have to stay there for 7 years. I'm not prepared to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
