Can I afford a 1.8M house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm shocked at someone that makes 450K a year that pays 70K a year in private school tuition. What a waste of money. Just stick the $35K per year in tuition in an investment account and hand your kids each $1,000,000 or more when they graduate college instead.

I agree this is an enormous waste of money and a perfect example of how government does certain things (like education) far more efficiently than rich people do in their own.

But not always and not necessarily as effectively. Very interesting how many people have switched to private during the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

You are conflating the two.

Pursuit[i] of wealth is a large motivator for those who are talented, innovative, and productivity to drive hard to put these fully to use instead of taking a government job like me. They may or may not become wealthy doing so.

But if they know at the outset that if they drive hard and are successful at it the government will take away most of the wealth they generate why would they bother in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you buy a nice house in the city with a suite for your mom at $1.8? Seems you would need to spend way more than that.

What are you talking about? We bought a “nice house” in 2019. We have four bedrooms plus a very nice suite with kitchen and bathroom, living room and large bedroom. We’rea fifteen minute walk to the metro where it is a 12 minute ride downtown. We have a third of an acre and walkable to restaurants and stores. We paid less than $900k.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

Lol. Even with his presumable cognitive decline, he’s still far more intelligent and capable than the typical 20 something dumbass who’s at the top of his game mentally.

[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.

Lol. Even with his presumable cognitive decline, he’s still far more intelligent and capable than the typical 20 something dumbass who’s at the top of his game mentally.

Let’s assume that’s true, I ask again, is that GOOD for society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you buy a nice house in the city with a suite for your mom at $1.8? Seems you would need to spend way more than that.

What are you talking about? We bought a “nice house” in 2019. We have four bedrooms plus a very nice suite with kitchen and bathroom, living room and large bedroom. We’rea fifteen minute walk to the metro where it is a 12 minute ride downtown. We have a third of an acre and walkable to restaurants and stores. We paid less than $900k.

How many square feet? And what neighborhood? Op presumably wants to be relatively close to her kids schools,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Even with his presumable cognitive decline, he’s still far more intelligent and capable than the typical 20 something dumbass who’s at the top of his game mentally.

Let’s assume that’s true, I ask again, is that GOOD for society?

Yes, let's put Bezos in the same category as OP's mother, who probably has no more than a couple of million that she may or may not need to spend down for end of life care.