What do you consider rich?

[vern_humphrey]

Have you actually inquired into this? Or are simply justifying your own self indulgence?

I happen to work for the Church’s social services arm as a case worker (among other things) and I can tell you that the vast majority of the Church’s resources are funnelled into such programmes.

Please do not slander the Church with these lies…

Can you point us to an official Catholic website where people are taught or encouraged to save and invest?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Can you point us to an official Catholic website where people are taught or encouraged to save and invest?

Try centesimus annus.

 

[estesbob]

Have you actually inquired into this? Or are simply justifying your own self indulgence?

I happen to work for the Church’s social services arm as a case worker (among other things) and I can tell you that the vast majority of the Church’s resources are funnelled into such programmes.

Please do not slander the Church with these lies…

I have not seen these programs in any diocese I have lived in. perhaps it is unique for your dioceses? Could you give us a description of these progrmas or perhaps direct us to a link ?

Thanks!

 

[stinkcat_14]

How do you cook them?

Once again, vern you must have been asleep in your economics course, so I will have to teach you some more economics. What does consumption mean? Let’s look at what the dictionary says:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/consumption

1. the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction.
2. the amount consumed: the high consumption of gasoline.
3. Economics. the using up of goods and services having an exchangeable value.

So yes, I do consume my shoes. The services I get from my shoes are a form of in-kind income, just as the services I get from my house is another form of in-kind income.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Try centesimus annus.

But where’s the implementation? Is there a Catholic website that actively encourages savings and investing?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Once again, vern you must have been asleep in your economics course, so I will have to teach you some more economics. What does consumption mean? Let’s look at what the dictionary says:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/consumption

1. the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction.
2. the amount consumed: the high consumption of gasoline.
3. Economics. the using up of goods and services having an exchangeable value.

I see – so if I wear my shoes until they rot off, I have increased my income.

So yes, I do consume my shoes. The services I get from my shoes are a form of in-kind income, just as the services I get from my house is another form of in-kind income.

Your house gives your services?

Mine just sits there. Maybe I haven’t trained it right.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Your house gives your services?

Mine just sits there. Maybe I haven’t trained it right.

Mine gives me plenty of services. It keeps the rain off me, keeps me warm in the winter, provides a place for me to keep my computer, etc. Now, you might not like the term, but once again it is commonly used in the economics profession. Think about it, why do we buy houses? We buy houses because of the benefits we get from them. Of course, we don’t have to buy, we could rent as well, or we could forgo housing altogether and live on the street.

As I have said before, the net benefits I get from my house because I own it are a form of in kind income? Compare it to my health insurance policy. I go to the doctor and I pay a $5 copay, the remaining fee that I don’t pay in an in kind benefit, which is a source of income. Why is the net benefit (net savings over my rental cost) not a similar type of income. What is the difference between the two?

 

[Minnesota_Mary]

Have you actually inquired into this? Or are simply justifying your own self indulgence?

I happen to work for the Church’s social services arm as a case worker (among other things) and I can tell you that the vast majority of the Church’s resources are funnelled into such programmes.

Please do not slander the Church with these lies…

Well guess what? I used to work for the same social services arm of the Church that you now work for. One of the reasons I feel the way I do is because I know what is going on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mine gives me plenty of services. It keeps the rain off me, keeps me warm in the winter, provides a place for me to keep my computer, etc. Now, you might not like the term, but once again it is commonly used in the economics profession. Think about it, why do we buy houses? We buy houses because of the benefits we get from them. Of course, we don’t have to buy, we could rent as well, or we could forgo housing altogether and live on the street.

We buy houses for shelter, not for income.

As I have said before, the net benefits I get from my house because I own it are a form of in kind income?

Nope. The house may shelter you, but that isn’t income. The value (and your equity) may increase over time, but that’s unrealized weath.

Compare it to my health insurance policy. I go to the doctor and I pay a $5 copay, the remaining fee that I don’t pay in an in kind benefit, which is a source of income. Why is the net benefit (net savings over my rental cost) not a similar type of income. What is the difference between the two?

The difference is, the house is unrealized wealth, the insurance is realized.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mine gives me plenty of services. It keeps the rain off me, keeps me warm in the winter, provides a place for me to keep my computer, etc. Now, you might not like the term, but once again it is commonly used in the economics profession. Think about it, why do we buy houses? We buy houses because of the benefits we get from them. Of course, we don’t have to buy, we could rent as well, or we could forgo housing altogether and live on the street.

We buy houses for shelter, not for income.

As I have said before, the net benefits I get from my house because I own it are a form of in kind income?

Nope. The house may shelter you, but that isn’t income. The value (and your equity) may increase over time, but that’s unrealized weath.

Compare it to my health insurance policy. I go to the doctor and I pay a $5 copay, the remaining fee that I don’t pay in an in kind benefit, which is a source of income. Why is the net benefit (net savings over my rental cost) not a similar type of income. What is the difference between the two?

The difference is, the house is unrealized wealth, the insurance is realized.

 

[Minnesota_Mary]

Have you actually inquired into this? Or are simply justifying your own self indulgence?

I happen to work for the Church’s social services arm as a case worker (among other things) and I can tell you that the vast majority of the Church’s resources are funnelled into such programmes.

Please do not slander the Church with these lies…

Let’s see. Since I am aware of only one social services agency under the auspices of the RCC, that agency gets over $2 billion from the government which is about 2/3 of the budget. So that must mean that this agency is spending the vast majority of its resources on programs that counsel the poor on saving and investing to become financially independent. On a $3 billion dollar budget, that would mean well over half is spent on these programs. Right??? Please, tell us more about these wonderful programs that teach the poor about financial stewardship. $1 1/2 billion is a lot of money for these programs.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We buy houses for shelter, not for income.

Nope. The house may shelter you, but that isn’t income. The value (and your equity) may increase over time, but that’s unrealized weath.

The difference is, the house is unrealized wealth, the insurance is realized.

Actually, some people buy houses to rent out, so they actually do buy houses for income. For example, I have the option to rent out my house, if I did rent out my house, I would receive some net rental income. Since I choose to live in my house, I am receiving the same housing services that a renter would be willing to pay money for. However, I get those services for a lower out of pocket cost than it would cost me if I rented my house. The difference is called net imputed rent. Second, we only buy houses because we get imputed rent and price appreciation from them. If I could get a better deal by renting from someone else, I would sell my house, invest the money and rent. According to your theory my income would be higher in that case.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, some people buy houses to rent out, so they actually do buy houses for income.

That’s true – and if you rent out your house, the rent you receive is indeed income.

For example, I have the option to rent out my house, if I did rent out my house, I would receive some net rental income. Since I choose to live in my house, I am receiving the same housing services that a renter would be willing to pay money for.

What are these magic “services” your house provides for you?

However, I get those services for a lower out of pocket cost than it would cost me if I rented my house. The difference is called net imputed rent.

You can call it a leg, but a tail is still not a leg.

Second, we only buy houses because we get imputed rent and price appreciation from them.

Nope - we buy houses to live in. We hope they appreciate, but they may not.

If they do, we call that unrealized wealth. **If **we sell, that wealth is realized – and we can spend the money.

If I could get a better deal by renting from someone else, I would sell my house, invest the money and rent. According to your theory my income would be higher in that case.

What sort of investment? If it is in stocks, then dividends would indeed be income. Appreciation of the stock would be unrealized income.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What are these magic “services” your house provides for you?

If you read the following paper, I think you will get a better idea of what economists mean when we talk about housing services, also it discusses the idea of imputed rent.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=610942

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you read the following paper, I think you will get a better idea of what economists mean when we talk about housing services, also it discusses the idea of imputed rent.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=610942

Abstract:
Recent papers have questioned the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ methodology for measuring rent increases and changes in implicit rents for owner-occupied housing. We compare the BLS estimates of increases in rents and owner-occupied housing costs to regression-based estimates using data from the American Housing Survey. A hedonic approach that explicitly calculates capitalization rates produces a methodologically consistent measure of the rental cost of owner-occupied housing. We estimate that between 1985 and 1999 the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) may have understated the cumulative increase in rents. But any understatement was slight. On the other hand, we estimate that the CPI overstated the increase in the cost of housing services for homeowners by 0.4 percent on an annualized basis from 1985 to 1999.

I don’t see any claim that “home ownership” equals “income” in that section. I do see some sloppy and confused writing, though.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t see any claim that “home ownership” equals “income” in that section. I do see some sloppy and confused writing, though.

Ok, please give me an example of their sloppy and confused writing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok, please give me an example of their sloppy and confused writing.

he·don·ic /hiˈdɒnɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hee-don-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of, characterizing, or pertaining to pleasure: a hedonic thrill.
2. pertaining to hedonism or hedonics.

Perhaps they meant

heu·ris·tic /hyʊˈrɪstɪk or, often, yʊ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hyoo-ris-tik or, often, yoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. serving to indicate or point out; stimulating interest as a means of furthering investigation.
2. encouraging a person to learn, discover, understand, or solve problems on his or her own, as by experimenting, evaluating possible answers or solutions, or by trial and error: a heuristic teaching method.
3. of, pertaining to, or based on experimentation, evaluation, or trial-and-error methods.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually, they meant the following:

Definition of Hedonic: Hedonic means of or relating to utility. (Literally, pleasure-related.) A hedonic econometric model is one where the independent variables are related to quality; e.g. the quality of a product that one might buy or the quality of a job one might take.

A hedonic model of wages might correspond to the idea that there are compensating differentials – that workers would get higher wages for jobs that were more unpleasant.

The definition is found here:

economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-hedonic.htm

They weren’t the ones who were confused.

 

[Jayda]

hola

my parish, children, husband and family and my interests make me rich.

but i do have kind of a darker shade of this question that concerns me… what do we consider too rich? like what is a sinful amount of money?

i have been trying to convince my husband that it is important for me (and us) that we let go of some of this… he is still not comfortable with it though… i am struggling to find some kind of clear definition that explains his responsibilities in this position, and i think maybe only when it is painfully clear (like in actual numbers) will he decide to do something about it…

and is anybody else afraid they might have too much?

que Dios te bendiga

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, they meant the following:

The definition is found here:

economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-hedonic.htm

They weren’t the ones who were confused.

Thank you for making my point for me. Hedonic does not mean “pretaining to utility.” It means “pretaining to pleasure.” But people who have little to say often try to say it with an overabundance of words, using inappropriate translations.