SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (8471)11/4/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769669
 
No, it does not. Again, it depends on the other sources of income, although I think that you nailed it by mentioning the house as a big factor in the calculation. If they do not care to liquidate, it is not realized as income. They do get an advantage out of having no rent, but that is blown if they refinance in order to supplement their cash income. I think Zoltan is right, that the average is quite high, but LT makes a good point that the median would be more relevant for something like this.......



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (8471)11/4/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769669
 
I don't think anybody thinks SS payments are acceptable income in themselves.

But the problem really is real estate. For some reason, some supporters of the elderly put forth arguments that housing is not relevant as to net worth, and that these folks should never be expected to move no matter what their house is worth. That would be alright except that those rules do not apply to the younger generations... houses now cost so much that they must be considered investments, people in their 30s that are incapacitated for some reason and lose income are almost always forced to sell their homes. So there is a double standard that implies that the elderly get their home as some sort of right, whereas younger people don't, and thats the problem.