The rich have money -- and passion

[vern_humphrey]

Come one Vern. Because I try to live my life based on faith in God and not faith in cash - that makes me eaten up with envy?

When you exhibit such mean-spirited posts, yes.

Or, is it that you actually can’t conceive that someone would attempt to live by his faith?

A person who lived by his faith wouldn’t be so full of envy.

Rather - here’s an alternative to your theory - you couldn’t refute what I wrote:

Did you stats change from 1% ro 20%? Yes, they did.

Did you read the original cites? When did I say 1%? Please post a quote.

Of course, you can’t – but I’ll predict you will not apologize either.

You are unable to answer the basic questions I raise (validity of the interview) so you answer with a question.

Not only did I give you a cite, but others gave it before me – your response was that you would not read it.

You cannot believe someone (in America no less!) is not deperately trying to get rich, so you offer me a book to read.

Can you not read? Or is it your position that if you don’t read, the data doesn’t exist?

Read what I wrote - I’ve lived near the very wealthy and taught their children. There is a spiritual poverty many of them suffer with. I didn’t say all of them, but many.

You say that – but produce no data. Are we supposed to believe you – who will not even read the seminal book on the subject – without any evidence on your part?

Do you deny this? Did Christ not mention it himself?

I do not recall Christ saying “Max37 has lived near the very wealthy and taught their children.”

I’m no saint. I’ve had some envy, especially as a teenager, but I grew up.

You’re trying to find a character flaw in me
*(thanks by the way - prayer, confession and studying my motives can’t do it all! ) *

because I raised not only questions you can’t answer, but a way of life you don’t believe is possible.

No – you really haven’t raised any questions at all. All you’ve done is say you won’t read the cited work.

 

[system]

When you exhibit such mean-spirited posts, yes.

I haven’t been mean, but having a pet theory challenged is often painful.
Can you cite? Show me where I have been mean.

A person who lived by his faith wouldn’t be so full of envy.

again - your theory - your attempt to belittle me…to hang on without reading what I said and considering it.

Did you read the original cites? When did I say 1%? Please post a quote.

In your opening post - where you created this entire thread by choosing a shoddy article done by “interviews” without statistics. Then you proceeded to define (without dictionaries) your concept of Social justice and Charity. Then pose a question you had already answered in your mind.

Talk about stackin’ the deck!

Of course, you can’t – but I’ll predict you will not apologize either.

I’ve apologized to you and others in the past, will probably do so in the future. But first, I’d have to see where I was wrong not just where I disagreed with someone.

Not only did I give you a cite, but others gave it before me – your response was that you would not read it.

my response was asking WHY would I read it when it does not pertain my priorities in life? I won’t read a book on how to build a car either.

Can you not read?

Now who is being meanspirited?

Actually, I’m blind and I’m dictating this to my 9 year old

I do not recall Christ saying “Max37 has lived near the very wealthy and taught their children.”

Every person reading this thread will know that you parsed that right out of sensibility. THIS was the thought you dissected

There is a spiritual poverty many of them suffer with. I didn’t say all of them, but many. Do you deny this? Did Christ not mention it himself?

No – you really haven’t raised any questions at all. All you’ve done is say you won’t read the cited work.

I’ve definitely hit a nerve somewhere. And yes - the questions remain.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I haven’t been mean, but having a pet theory challenged is often painful.
Can you cite? Show me where I have been mean.

again - your theory - your attempt to belittle me…to hang on without reading what I said and considering it.

In your opening post - where you created this entire thread by choosing a shoddy article done by “interviews” without statistics. Then you proceeded to define (without dictionaries) your concept of Social justice and Charity. Then pose a question you had already answered in your mind.

Talk about stackin’ the deck!

I’ve apologized to you and others in the past, will probably do so in the future. But first, I’d have to see where I was wrong not just where I disagreed with someone.

my response was asking WHY would I read it when it does not pertain my priorities in life? I won’t read a book on how to build a car either.

Now who is being meanspirited?

Actually, I’m blind and I’m dictating this to my 9 year old

Every person reading this thread will know that you parsed that right out of sensibility. THIS was the thought you dissected

I’ve definitely hit a nerve somewhere. And yes - the questions remain.

There’s the bell. Recess is over.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s not statistics, but compound interest (or profit.) The longer your funds have to compound, the better off you are.

Personally, I feel grandparents should establish trust funds for the education of their grandchildren. They should also assist the parents in inculcating in the grandchildren a respect for education, hard work and **saving./**QUOTE]
In the display it shows $10,000 from grandpa made the child a millionaire while the child contributed ZERO. I am surprised you feel that grandpa bares the burden of the child’s success.

“Saving” you use this repeatedly even though current saving accounts run about 1.5% negative per year! The proper path is to invest not save. See the affects of grandpa investing in the earlier example. If Grandpa put the money in a saving account the child would have lost real money(buying power) every year after age 5

 

[vern_humphrey]

In the display it shows $10,000 from grandpa made the child a millionaire while the child contributed ZERO. I am surprised you feel that grandpa bares the burden of the child’s success.

That’s because you’re not using a** real** child and a real incident, but a hypothetical one.

There is no law of physics that says if you establish a trust fund for a grandchild that child will not save his or her own money. In fact, I have found just the opposite – by starting small trust funds for my children, they were shown how savings and investments grew and have their own plans now.

“Saving” you use this repeatedly even though current saving accounts run about 1.5% negative per year!

Mark Twain pointed out there is a big difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.

Similarly, there is a big difference between saving and a savings account.

The average person must save in order to invest. That does not mean the only investment vehicle is a savings account!

The proper path is to invest not save.

No, the proper path is to save and invest the savings.

If you do not save, what have you to** invest**?

See the affects of grandpa investing in the earlier example. If Grandpa put the money in a saving account the child would have lost real money(buying power) every year after age 5

Grandpa knows the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug – and between saving and savings accounts.

 

[system]

There’s the bell. Recess is over.

NO - that was the sound of a king falling over

 

[vern_humphrey]

NO - that was the sound of a king falling over

Did you knock over your chess board?

Very clearly, this thread has become an occastion of sin to you. It brings out spite and envy. And there is no point in me discussing it with you – since you refuse to read the cites offered you, but choose to argue from your own preconceptions.

I will pray that you are able to master your envy, but I will not feed your emotions any more.

 

[system]

Did you knock over your chess board?

Very clearly, this thread has become an occastion of sin to you. It brings out spite and envy. And there is no point in me discussing it with you – since you refuse to read the cites offered you, but choose to argue from your own preconceptions.

I will pray that you are able to master your envy, but I will not feed your emotions any more.

Thanks for the prayers - every little bit helps. And thanks again for pointing out my sins. If only there were rules about that.

Actually the sin on my part has been pride - that you had over five chances to rebutt my statements, and couldn’t.

But the good news is that you’re so used to winning your arguments, that I was worried you may lose your humilty. Now you won’t.

So we’re helping each other Vern!

But you did muster these mighty ad hominem attacks:

• I can’t read (I can)
• I’m being eaten alive by envy (I’m not)
• I’m sinning just by this debate. (I’m expressing my faith)
• I’m not living my faith (That’s against all guidelines)
• I’ll never apologize (you know I have)
• 45 years of experience and almost a decade as a teacher don’t count for your little debate

That’s enough for now. Basically you derided me at every chance.

After deriding me about a recess bell, I made the king reference.
The falling king represents your resignation after repeatedly failing to address the real and valid points that oppose your custom-made thread.

It’s pointless to ask all the same questions again.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Personally, I feel grandparents should establish trust funds for the education of their grandchildren. They should also assist the parents in inculcating in the grandchildren a respect for education, hard work and saving.

Personally, I would be totally against this. The reason is that grandparents shouldn’t do what their children and grandchildren could do for themselves. They should take their $10,000 and give it to their local catholic school. That is how I became wealthy, because I was the beneficiary of a good Catholic education. And that education has allowed me to make good money in the job market. As far as paying for college, let the kids and grandkids earn that money on their own. The might learn some good lessons along the way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Personally, I would be totally against this. The reason is that grandparents shouldn’t do what their children and grandchildren could do for themselves. They should take their $10,000 and give it to their local catholic school. That is how I became wealthy, because I was the beneficiary of a good Catholic education. And that education has allowed me to make good money in the job market. As far as paying for college, let the kids and grandkids earn that money on their own. The might learn some good lessons along the way.

I would contribute to a Catholic school if we had one. As it is, I contribute to the Knights of Columbus scholarship fund.

But charity begins at home, and I would still establish a trust fund for my grandchildren, so they might learn first-hand the value of saving and investing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Read “The Millionaire Next Door” – an in-depth study of the wealthy in America.

About 80% of all millionaires made it on their own.

I have done most of the things that Vern has been promoting all of my life. My wealth probably puts me in the upper 20% of people in the US, less than a million, but not poor by any stretch of the imagination. However, I did not make it entirely on my own. Some people in my town where I grew up decided to start a Catholic School in the midst of the Great Depression (around 1932), that school gave me a foundation that helped me be successful in the job market. I also had parents who were willing to pay to send me to elementary and secondary school when they could have got my education for free at the public schools. I also had government help to get a college degree (well, actually three of them). Also, I make more money as a college professor because I teach in a state school rather than a Catholic college, so some of my wealth comes from the generosity of taxpayers.

So even though I might be worth a million dollars some day, I can’t say I did it all on my own. Good decisions are important, but they are not everything.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s because you’re not using a** real** child and a real incident, but a hypothetical one.

There is no law of physics that says if you establish a trust fund for a grandchild that child will not save his or her own money. In fact, I have found just the opposite – by starting small trust funds for my children, they were shown how savings and investments grew and have their own plans now.

Mark Twain pointed out there is a big difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.

Similarly, there is a big difference between saving and a savings account.

The average person must save in order to invest. That does not mean the only investment vehicle is a savings account!

No, the proper path is to save and invest the savings.

If you do not save, what have you to** invest**?

Grandpa knows the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug – and between saving and savings accounts.

Sorry you do not get it. May be I have not explained well enough. A child born today is roughly $29,400 in debt (I checked for this post) now as we mentioned earlier we expect the education to be about $125,000 If we throw in a car from 16-22 ( insurance and upkeep $30,000) were up to 155k, then some braces, medical ($20k for birth), food, cloths, shelter, how about baseball, soccer, etc. The government estimates $350,000 per kid. A small Catholic family with 4 children that’s $1,400,000. I believe you can get it done for a million or slightly less. However the point is few parents have that kind of money. Or will make that king of income. So the government uses tax transfers to offer k-12 free, and then loans the $60,000 for the college education. So the kid leaves school with about $90,000 in debt, $60,000 in loans and $30k in public debt. Most of these children will be 30 before they have a chance to have a positive net worth. Like it or not we live is a debt based society. Children today must earn more than they owe. Lets look at our kid earning $45k as a college graduate. Thats about $27k after taxes. The price of a house (~$220k) that about $15k after tax ($20k before) wow he has only $12k to live on after the house payment. He’ll need half that for a car. So how fast will that student loan be paid off? In summary he better select a house that will increase in value.

 

[whatevergirl]

It shows resources (today a porsche is roughly $50,000-$70,000) additionally he attended a private prep school some say that school’s tuition was higher than Harvard’s. His mother sat on boards to include the Board of Reagent (Governor appointed) not typical of the blue collar crowd. His father was a Lawyer. This is not to diminish his accomplishments at all. It is to reaffirm investment (resources and assets) are what makes wealth. The prep school, Harvard, and car were paid for by whom?

that’s a cheap Porsche…is that used?

 

[whatevergirl]

Sorry you do not get it. May be I have not explained well enough. A child born today is roughly $29,400 in debt (I checked for this post) now as we mentioned earlier we expect the education to be about $125,000 If we throw in a car from 16-22 ( insurance and upkeep $30,000) were up to 155k, then some braces, medical ($20k for birth), food, cloths, shelter, how about baseball, soccer, etc. The government estimates $350,000 per kid. A small Catholic family with 4 children that’s $1,400,000. I believe you can get it done for a million or slightly less. However the point is few parents have that kind of money. Or will make that king of income. So the government uses tax transfers to offer k-12 free, and then loans the $60,000 for the college education. So the kid leaves school with about $90,000 in debt, $60,000 in loans and $30k in public debt. Most of these children will be 30 before they have a chance to have a positive net worth. Like it or not we live is a debt based society. Children today must earn more than they owe. Lets look at our kid earning $45k as a college graduate. Thats about $27k after taxes. The price of a house (~$220k) that about $15k after tax ($20k before) wow he has only $12k to live on after the house payment. He’ll need half that for a car. So how fast will that student loan be paid off? In summary he better select a house that will increase in value.

and suppose one lives in say, Florida…where the real estate prices have gone haywire? I am relocating there…and the house we are going to move into, is a lease option to buy (to make sure this is where we want to live)…say we want to purchase it…it’s $350k…but honestly, I cannot see turning around and selling it say in 10 yrs…for more than that. It’s a great home, but like all of Florida…the houses are way overpriced…everywhere…especially Orlando. (but we are moving to Tampa, and it’s not much better)

What does one do, in that type of housing environment? Had we decided to remain in PA…what you say could easily be doable…one could really build up some great equity. Now, some 20 yrs ago in Florida…one of my dh’s brothers bought their home for $80k…now, it was appraised for $450k… (so…how can anyone get ahead in Florida???)

 

[Al_Masetti]

Interesting, but possibly misleading.

Commonly, the U.S. government has been publishing data that personal saving has collapsed; “it fell in the late 1990’s to a 70-yar low by 2001 …”

The quote, by the way, is from an intriguing article in the Barron’s magazine /newspaper of May 28, 2007. I saw the cover photo (golden egg) and bought the magazine (expensive!) and, in summary, …

[from page 27] … “Household net worth - assets minus liabilities - stood at a record $55.6 trillion by the end of 2006, according to ‘Flow of Funds’ data from the Federal Reserve Board.”

…“Household net worth as 584.1% of DPI [disposable personal income] by year-end 2006, the second highest multip on record.”

" … by year end, $6.7 trillion [was] in checking accounts, time deposits, and money market funds. But, in a modern economy, most saving is money put at risk, often with the hope of larger returns and the chance of substantial losses."

“… real net worth per household [was] at a record high of $486,000 by year-end 2006, or 31.7% higher thn at 1996’s conclusion, one of the fastest 10-year increases ever.”

“… Gross private saving further includes contributions to the building of new residences and the renovation of existing homes, which can help power gains in the value of home-owners equity. These forms of residential investment far exceed the sums imputed to homeowners in the BEA’s [Bureau of Economic Analysis, in charge of the national income accounts at the Commerce Department] conventional measures of personal saving. As noted, by year-end 2006, homeowners’ equity accounted for about 20% of total household net worth.”

It’s a long and detailed article, but it’s worth reading for any folks interested in the debate on this thread.

Most libraries take a subscription to Barron’s.

Sorry you do not get it. May be I have not explained well enough. A child born today is roughly $29,400 in debt (I checked for this post) now as we mentioned earlier we expect the education to be about $125,000 If we throw in a car from 16-22 ( insurance and upkeep $30,000) were up to 155k, then some braces, medical ($20k for birth), food, cloths, shelter, how about baseball, soccer, etc. The government estimates $350,000 per kid. A small Catholic family with 4 children that’s $1,400,000. I believe you can get it done for a million or slightly less. However the point is few parents have that kind of money. Or will make that king of income. So the government uses tax transfers to offer k-12 free, and then loans the $60,000 for the college education. So the kid leaves school with about $90,000 in debt, $60,000 in loans and $30k in public debt. Most of these children will be 30 before they have a chance to have a positive net worth. Like it or not we live is a debt based society. Children today must earn more than they owe. Lets look at our kid earning $45k as a college graduate. Thats about $27k after taxes. The price of a house (~$220k) that about $15k after tax ($20k before) wow he has only $12k to live on after the house payment. He’ll need half that for a car. So how fast will that student loan be paid off? In summary he better select a house that will increase in value.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You got it! 20% is homeowner equity thus 80% debt on the house. These people have debt, a lot of debt it simply was not their choice. That is why the do not use cash (checking accounts, time deposits, and money market funds) based financing they can’t! The US is structured to heavy debt to higher risk asset. They have to return 10% on their investment because they have 6-7% debt against the investment (asset) Remember their college loan is 60k at 5-6% their house mortgage 150-250k @6-7%, add 10-20k in credit card @ 12%, throw in some car loans. Wow, a record number of people are carrying over $300,000 in debt. This is often, or approach, 10 times the base personal income, a typical college educated person starts at $45k and will stay under $60k for several years. The bottom line is they have no choice unless there is extreme parent involvement in resources as paying for the college, and giving them Grandma’s house. Many college graduates renting a tiny apartment to save $1,000 a month (that is a lot) would need **21 years to save for their house purchase!!! **They would be 54 years old before they start to house shopping!!! Additionally as the debt loads are so high conventional loans will not work(classical capped at twice the income level). That means the government will either be directly lending(as college loans), or underwriting (as FHA), or paying through taxes (as k-12) more and more. And yes more bankruptcies as the income simply can not support the loans, only asset appreciation can pay-off these debt levels. Net result more government involvement.

 

[whatevergirl]

are u answering my post, texas roofer? can’t tell. I think you are? if so…thank you!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sorry you do not get it. May be I have not explained well enough. A child born today is roughly $29,400 in debt (I checked for this post) now as we mentioned earlier we expect the education to be about $125,000 If we throw in a car from 16-22 ( insurance and upkeep $30,000) were up to 155k, then some braces, medical ($20k for birth), food, cloths, shelter, how about baseball, soccer, etc. The government estimates $350,000 per kid. A small Catholic family with 4 children that’s $1,400,000.

Yes, raising children is expensive. It’s expensive whether you have a good job or not.

All the more reason to give children a good education and teach them to value hard work and thrift.

I believe you can get it done for a million or slightly less. However the point is few parents have that kind of money. Or will make that king of income. So the government uses tax transfers to offer k-12 free, and then loans the $60,000 for the college education. So the kid leaves school with about $90,000 in debt, $60,000 in loans and $30k in public debt. Most of these children will be 30 before they have a chance to have a positive net worth. Like it or not we live is a debt based society.

But we don’t have to live in a debt-based society. One way to get out of that spiral of debt is to put aside money early in the game. When I was younger, and I wanted to buy something – for example, an automobile, I would figure out the payments, put that much aside every month – and eventually buy the car for cash. This meant I drew interest instead of paying it.

Then I kept the car for 18 years.

Children today must earn more than they owe. Lets look at our kid earning $45k as a college graduate. Thats about $27k after taxes. The price of a house (~$220k) that about $15k after tax ($20k before) wow he has only $12k to live on after the house payment. He’ll need half that for a car. So how fast will that student loan be paid off? In summary he better select a house that will increase in value.

One should always look for a house that will increase in value. And one should work while in college to help with the tuition. One should seek scholarships – the ROTC scholarship is a great one and gives you a chance to repay a bit of your debt to the country.

 

[Frankk]

The thesis of this thread is that in the United States, all the institutions and freedoms are in place to allow everyone to become prosperous. What is lacking is quality education for all, and inculcation of the values of hard work, saving and investing.

This is an interesting point but doesn’t it undermine its own validity? It recognises that quality education for all is lacking - but I don’t sense any real hope that it will actually become universally available.

IF all the institutions were in place then everyone might have the potential of becoming prosperous but, in reality, there is a fundamental criterion which is missing. It is that people also need the opportunity to prosper.

I’m sure there are examples of individuals who came from very deprived backgrounds who have managed to drag themselves out of poverty into prosperity but these are the exception to the rule. And, of course, these exceptions are used to validate the principle.

Having only visited the U.S. once [and having had a great time!] I was left with the impression that there are areas of the country which are incredibly deprived and if you’re unlucky enough to be born there the chances of ‘escape’ are remote indeed.

I’m happy to be corrected on this point but I was definitely left with the impression that there is a growing ‘underclass’ who are - and always will be - trapped in poverty. Am I wrong in this perception?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is an interesting point but doesn’t it undermine its own validity? It recognises that quality education for all is lacking - but I don’t sense any real hope that it will actually become universally available.

You could have said that forty or fifty years ago about segregation – in fact, the forces upholding segregation were much stronger that those upholding poor education.

Look at it this way – children are required by law to attend school. And the government picks the school your child attends. If your child is assigned to a bad school, and my child to a good one – are you and your child getting equal protection under the law?

The failure ot give all children a first-class, world-quality education is the civil rights issue of the 21st Century.

IF all the institutions were in place then everyone might have the potential of becoming prosperous but, in reality, there is a fundamental criterion which is missing. It is that people also need the opportunity to prosper.

Given a good education, the opportunity is there for everyone.

I’m sure there are examples of individuals who came from very deprived backgrounds who have managed to drag themselves out of poverty into prosperity but these are the exception to the rule. And, of course, these exceptions are used to validate the principle.

And if we give every child a quality education and inculcate in them the values of work, saving and investing, all children will have the same opportunity.

Having only visited the U.S. once [and having had a great time!] I was left with the impression that there are areas of the country which are incredibly deprived and if you’re unlucky enough to be born there the chances of ‘escape’ are remote indeed.

Our population is very mobile – educate the children from the poor areas and they are no longer trapped there.

I’m happy to be corrected on this point but I was definitely left with the impression that there is a growing ‘underclass’ who are - and always will be - trapped in poverty. Am I wrong in this perception?

At the current time, you are not wrong. Several factors brought that about. The first is failure to educate the children. The second is a well-meaning but ultimately debilitating welfare system – which tore apart poor families and became a survival strategy for some people. The third is a failure to inculcate the proper values – in fact, in some segments, disrespect for education is the cultural norm.

So the challenge is to turn that around. The strategy is to provide every child with a quality education – one which inculcates values as well as teaches traditional subjects.