Can I afford a 1.8M house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bezos is at the top of his game. Is it good for society that he continues to strive for more? Is it good for society if Amazon takes over everything?

Greed is NOT good.

Dp, Not sure how Bezos has anything to do with the estate tax argument as the exemption is currently capped at $12 million.

In any case, current tax law allows op to receive an amount greater than she is talking about tax free from her parents. Nothing lazy or selfish about it.

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of Bezos but can you imagine if he was in charge of vaccine distribution? Gotta admit, he is a logistics god.

[Anonymous]

You’d be really dumb to take that on. First, with taxes, I’m skeptical that your payment will be that low...I’d guess more like $9-10K/month. Also, I don’t see how you can count on the mom $ indefinitely. Also, dual income is problematic bc you both have to maintain that income for this to work.

But, I also think it’s foolish to spend $70k on private school with your income, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP who is anti-inheritance does not seem to understand human nature.

One of the main reasons people work hard and thereby contribute to productivity of the economy is to provide for their children. This may be during their lifetime or after they die. This is a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race.

If the state overly limits transfer of wealth to children (or to charity as another poster has raised), many people simply would not exert the additional effort and simply rest on their laurels once they had enough money to see themselves comfortably to death.

Stymieing the energy and productivity of these people in this way would lower the overall productivity of the economy. The extra money would not go to educate disadvantaged children or provide other government services as PP thinks because there would be no extra money.

I actually think the bolded would be an AMAZING result for society.

Why? It deprives society of the efforts of the most innovative and productive among us.

Most people begin to lose mental capabilities in their 30s. By your logic, the most innovative and productive, aren't people working late in life to amass millions to pass on to their children.

This is patently not true. Many great contributors to society have had a fair amount of gray hair. Sorry but your comment is ageist.

It is true. Did you even bother to Google it? This is one study. There are many, many others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/

You are conflating two issues. Don't get confused. Older people do contribute greatly to society, despite no longer being at the top of their game.

Similarly, you are conflating wealth with talent, innovation and productivity. This is also wrong.

I recommend you educate yourself before posting.

Did you read the article? Main conclusion: These results, together with similar findings in many other studies, clearly establish the existence of cross-sectional age-related declines for many cognitive variables prior to age 60." 60 is quite far away from 30. And there are many sort of work where experience far outweighs superior performance on some sort of cognitive test. Like how to build and maintain a business successfully.

I did not read this particular article. I have read others like it.

Again, just because some people are smart at 60 doesn't mean that people don't start to lose their mental abilities in their 30s. You continue to conflate different issues. Why is that?

Because business success does not depend on the cognitive abilities generally measured. There are quite a few studies out there that show success in college--an indication of relative cognitive ability--has little to do with how successful one eventually is in life.

Other things are more important such as emotional intelligence, the ability to make connections between disparate things, and just plain experience.

Yes. The rich aren't smarter or more innovative or more productive, as PP claimed. There is no societal good in removing the estate tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bezos is at the top of his game. Is it good for society that he continues to strive for more? Is it good for society if Amazon takes over everything?

Greed is NOT good.

He benefits from monopolistic practices. These should be ended.

But don't worry--he is 57 and is in steep cognitive decline according to a PP. We'll soon see Amazon in a death spin I guess.

Way to misrepresent the scientific data PP shared. I'm sure that type of logical thinking helps you with your innovative and productive business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bezos is at the top of his game. Is it good for society that he continues to strive for more? Is it good for society if Amazon takes over everything?

Greed is NOT good.

He benefits from monopolistic practices. These should be ended.

But don't worry--he is 57 and is in steep cognitive decline according to a PP. We'll soon see Amazon in a death spin I guess.

Way to misrepresent the scientific data PP shared. I'm sure that type of logical thinking helps you with your innovative and productive business.

I assume you are the same PP who shared the data, which truly has nothing to do with how smart in business one is up until a pretty old age. You also don't seem to be able to recognize sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dual Income: $450-$475K
2 kids in private school: $70K
Net worth $3M (excluding $$ for down payment) and kid's 529s will be fully funded by their grandparents - maximum gift contributions.
25% down on a 1.8M house
We're 40.

The mortgage will be $7K/month, but my mother will be living with us and contributing in approximately $2-$2.5K in rent.

This has gotta be troll

[Anonymous]

OP I would only buy the house if I could afford it without $ from parents. My father’s in-house 24/7 care is running 40K a month. Fortunately he can afford it but we are no longer receiving the $ he was giving us and had been for over 30 years

Safer to rely on oneself. Treat $ given by parents as a bonus but please don’t factor into your budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I would only buy the house if I could afford it without $ from parents. My father’s in-house 24/7 care is running 40K a month. Fortunately he can afford it but we are no longer receiving the $ he was giving us and had been for over 30 years

Safer to rely on oneself. Treat $ given by parents as a bonus but please don’t factor into your budget.

You are a credit to mooches everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure you have parents subsidizing your lifestyle at age 40

Hey I’d take it if my parents were loaded and insisted.

I think some grandparents take advantage of the gift tax by giving money to kids/grandkids... as my dad always said, "you can't take it with you".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I would only buy the house if I could afford it without $ from parents. My father’s in-house 24/7 care is running 40K a month. Fortunately he can afford it but we are no longer receiving the $ he was giving us and had been for over 30 years

Safer to rely on oneself. Treat $ given by parents as a bonus but please don’t factor into your budget.

Wow! I have never heard of care costing this much. The highest I have ever heard is $20,000 a month and that was a pretty big outlier. More like $10,000 a month.

How does the $40,000 break down?

[Anonymous]

Is everyone just ignoring they have $3M in savings? That is huge. Compound interest will put them in great shape if they didn't add another dime to savings.

Also, if it becomes an issue - they can sell the house! Sure they may lose out on some fees, but its not like it's going to come anywhere close to sinking them. Buy the house if and if all the worst case scenarios come true, just sell...

Seems ok to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I would only buy the house if I could afford it without $ from parents. My father’s in-house 24/7 care is running 40K a month. Fortunately he can afford it but we are no longer receiving the $ he was giving us and had been for over 30 years

Safer to rely on oneself. Treat $ given by parents as a bonus but please don’t factor into your budget.

Wow! I have never heard of care costing this much. The highest I have ever heard is $20,000 a month and that was a pretty big outlier. More like $10,000 a month.

How does the $40,000 break down?

In house 24/7 is expensive. There are 720 hours in a month. At $30/hour (think health aide + administrative costs) this is $21600 per month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dual Income: $450-$475K
2 kids in private school: $70K
Net worth $3M (excluding $$ for down payment) and kid's 529s will be fully funded by their grandparents - maximum gift contributions.
25% down on a 1.8M house
We're 40.

The mortgage will be $7K/month, but my mother will be living with us and contributing in approximately $2-$2.5K in rent.

Seriously, you should not be charging your mom.

But they clearly need the cash, PP. Didn't you see where they're ONLY bringing in $475,000 a year?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dual Income: $450-$475K
2 kids in private school: $70K
Net worth $3M (excluding $$ for down payment) and kid's 529s will be fully funded by their grandparents - maximum gift contributions.
25% down on a 1.8M house
We're 40.

The mortgage will be $7K/month, but my mother will be living with us and contributing in approximately $2-$2.5K in rent.

Seriously, you should not be charging your mom.

But they clearly need the cash, PP. Didn't you see where they're ONLY bringing in $475,000 a year?!

Avaricious people on this site. Full of excuses but it is bad karma as a PP said. Let your mom leave it all in a will.