Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (8497)	11/4/1999 1:38:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No I don't consider 67 elderly, it was once however. I think they should raise the age for SS to at least 67 - or did they already do that? I think this balooning equity in real estate situation is commonplace on the coasts. I think what she wants to do is somehow pass the house over to her kids in a will. So she doesn't want to do a reverse mortgage, and thats a hidden agenda of the AARP and their lobbyists to exclude real estate from the picture when evaluating the financial position of the elderly.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (8497)	11/4/1999 1:41:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I convinced a woman I know to sell her home. Her home was worth $900,000 and she was living alone. Her taxes were $8,000/yr and so the total expenses in keeping the place were about $15,000/yr. I told her it was costing her about $70,000/yr to live there. She said "nonsense". I said the cost was at least that, since she could get at least $60k in income off the $900k. She never considered the opportunity cost. So she sold the house and bought a waterfront home in Florida for $350,000. The rest generates plenty of income.