• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Debt: The fabric of our lives

I don't disagree that people can and do get car loans for used cars. I was saying that it was not necessarily a necessity. If you had any savings then you could have likely bought a 4 year old car for cash, or maybe even the car you bought if you were willing to use your savings. My position is that car loans are not absolutely necessary if someone is willing to drive older cars.
But many people do not have enough savings (that are not tied up in things like retirement) to but a late model car with low miles. Your 4 year old car with 50k miles or so would still be around 2/3 of the price of a new car.
And if you go for cars you can buy for $4k-$5k they will be considerably older and have more miles and will thus not be as reliable.

The thing is, there are plenty of even new cars you can get for under $20k or late model used cars for around $10k. The problem is not financing them, especially if you have good credit and can take advantage of manufacturer subsidized interest rates. The problem is that too many people get too much car, put too little down and stretch the term of the loan too far in order to afford the payments. And also they do not consider maintenance costs, which can be much higher with luxury brands than what people are used to.

Same goes with the house. People will get too much house, stretch it to a 30 year mortgage (you can save a ton with a 15 year but you may have to get a cheaper house which many people don't want) and if they were renting before they might not appreciate all the expenses associated with home ownership in addition to the mortgage itself.
 
You likely can get a cheap car when you're starting out and then put the money you would use on a car payment aside to buy the next one.
That cheap car can become unreliable fast. Taking out a car loan can definitely be the right decision for many people.
 
While I do agree Ivy League schools are overpriced a student without parental support most likely needs loans to get any college degree.
Yes, and if you still have to borrow, taking a job while in school can definitely reduce the amount of loans one has to take out. Big difference if one graduates with $15k or $60k in student loans.
 
I agree.
Any borrowing is a gamble. The safest course is to buy only what you can afford out-of-pocket.
Not all risk is bad. You have to weigh the risk vs. benefits of the loan.

You may have to defer gratification for a few years, and buy a cheaper version of what you want, but, in the long run, you'll never know the threat of debt, and the interest payments you've avoided will grow.
I am all for being a responsible borrower, which is different from eschewing borrowing completely.

It seems to me that spending $300,000 for a house listed at $100,000, putting your family in debt and at a lower economic status for thirty years, when you could have endured a lower economic status for a few years, bought it for cash, and put $200,000 to your own needs might be the better and more secure choice.
During the time it took you to save $100,000 (assuming real estate prices did not change over that time) you still have to live somewhere - i.e. pay rent. Paying a mortgage, even if it is considerably more than the rent, would still be a good choice as you are paying off the principal as well.
Also, you would save a ton with a 15 year mortgage over a 30 year mortgage. So there are ways to save in the long run without going full Dave Ramsey.

By the way, your calculation is way off. I used google mortgage calculator and with the suggested interest rate of 3.92% and $80k borrowed on that $100k house (20% down) the total cost of mortgage is $136k or $156k total. For a 30 year loan. At 15 years, it's only $106k for the loan, or $126k total. Totally not worth delaying gratification on this one as again, you have to live somewhere in the meantime.
 
What is actually being advocated here?

Passing laws banning lending?

Banning lending to poor people?
 
What is actually being advocated here?

Passing laws banning lending?

Banning lending to poor people?

You could have read the OP, then you might have seen this:

To say that a person's indebtedness or credit worthiness is merely a reflection of that person's individual choices is limited thinking in the extreme to say the least.

It seems to me that what is being advocated is that we shouldn't make credit worthiness an indicator of whether a person has made good or bad choices. This suggestion is tied to another discussion here, in which using credit reports to make employment decisions was discussed.
 
Debt is central to most Americans’ life experience. We obtain housing, education, transport and medical services through our access to credit — and as such we spend most of our lives deeply indebted. How dispiriting debt is; it gnaws at us, this non-dischargeable burden.

But most Americans begin life woefully undercapitalized for the life we lead — we are unable to purchase homes, raise families, provide for medical care or retirement, or even buy cars and refrigerators, from our own resources. Rather, we stealthily borrow to enjoy “basic” requirements, taking comfort, I suppose, in the notion that everyone does it. And Americans are, of course, rich. The life cycle of most Americans involves getting a job and then using one’s anticipated future income to access credit, which is then used for obtaining life’s necessities (and then some). The resulting debt persists thereafter; we no longer celebrate paying off mortgages, we refinance and extend up through the hour of our death.

The economy thrives when we take on debt. Indeed, assuming our fair share of debt can be seen as an American duty. Without the fuel of debt (that is, without access to credit) the American economy can and will collapse. The ongoing economic malaise results in part from the deleveraging of American households, depressing our consumption. Consumer debt drives the American economy — America is built on debt.

...

Debt is a larger phenomenon, of course, than our personal obligations. Our institutions are also indebted. Pity our “poor” universities, saddled by witless borrowings to pay for tony student centers, luxo-dorms, and pampered professors. Cities and towns cut back on public services as debt takes greater bites from budgets. States watch their credit ratings slide with each new social program. Indeed, a progressive’s take on the current budgetary stalemate (the proverbial Fiscal Cliff) involves a cynical embrace of public debt reduction by the “fiscal conservatives” in order to justify rollback of social entitlements.

The current financial stress has revealed all these points of weakness. And even at the highest level of social organization — the interactions among sovereign nation-states — we find debt everywhere. There is the unconscionable and unpayable debt owed by the world’s poorest countries; if any debt merits a Jubilee it is certainly this. But even rich countries (the United States first among them) are significantly indebted.

...

debt is not a neutral social institution. It is first and foremost an institution allowing for the exercise of power. Debt is the foundation of hierarchy and hence much social structure. Its presence marks the divided spheres of our lives: between the “communist” family and small community domains where obligations reflect caring, resist quantification and meld into a richer cultural and moral life, and the larger, grossly more impersonal economy with its rigid demands.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/06/debt_is_ingrained_in_americas_way_of_life/

To say that a person's indebtedness or credit worthiness is merely a reflection of that person's individual choices is limited thinking in the extreme to say the least.
Anecdotal, my parents recently ran into some credit issues trying to buy a house recently. They currently own their current home and haven't bought a car in a decade. Therefore, the 30 or so earlier credit years didn't mean shit to a couple of lenders. The credit rating, like the BMI is a decent screening method, but shouldn't be used as a blind metric.
 
Debt is a net benefit when the properly accounted for benefits from its use exceed the properly accounted costs of borrowing. While those measurements are related to the length of the use. etc.... they are not directly tied to it.

Credit use reflects personal choices and reactions to the economic environment of the individual.
 
You could have read the OP, then you might have seen this:

To say that a person's indebtedness or credit worthiness is merely a reflection of that person's individual choices is limited thinking in the extreme to say the least.

It seems to me that what is being advocated is that we shouldn't make credit worthiness an indicator of whether a person has made good or bad choices. This suggestion is tied to another discussion here, in which using credit reports to make employment decisions was discussed.

So the purpose was a complete rehash of a thread we just had here?
 
You could have read the OP, then you might have seen this:



It seems to me that what is being advocated is that we shouldn't make credit worthiness an indicator of whether a person has made good or bad choices. This suggestion is tied to another discussion here, in which using credit reports to make employment decisions was discussed.

So the purpose was a complete rehash of a thread we just had here?

Yes, that's exactly what it is, so you need not bother dismalling up this thread as well.
 
To say that a person's indebtedness or credit worthiness is merely a reflection of that person's individual choices is limited thinking in the extreme to say the least.

While some debt is entirely on the folks who owe it, many other people are forced to use debt to replace the income they used to get before the Capitalist and Financial classes began taking it all for themselves.

They got a real trick going there too. In the past, paying people a fair wage ensured they could afford their company's goods. Now that they aren't paying the fair wage, they lend the money for life's essentials, getting paid twice for the same product: once in the money saved not paying the employee and again in the money the employ pays for the product anyway (this time with interest).
 
Debt makes complete sense when the benefits of the item received last over a period of time.

The length of the debt should be no longer than the length of time the benefit of the item received will be.

This means that the expense for the thing being used (house, car, college education) is paid for as the benefit is being received, evening out the expense with the benefit, rather than having a benefit and expense mismatch.

It's simpler than that.

The debt is only worth while if the value of the good/service purchased is greater than the total cost of the debt.


The real problem with purchasing on credit is that it divorces the price paid for the item from the purchase itself.

That somehow manages to get a lot of folk confused and in trouble.
 
Yes, that's exactly what it is, so you need not bother dismalling up this thread as well.

OK, I will let people sit back and soak up your thoughtful contributions to the thread.

There may even be someone you haven't insulted yet.

Let me get this straight:
You wade into this thread under the pretense that you can't tell what the thread is advocating.
I explain the point of the thread to you, by pointing out what you should have paid attention to in the OP.
You then ask if there is no purpose to the the thread other than to rehash another thread.
I agree with you, and note that this means you don't need to bother with the thread (albeit in a somewhat snarky manner).
And now we come to the point where somehow it is my contribution to this thread that is lacking thought, and that I have insulted everyone in the thread? That's rich, even for you.
 
OK, I will let people sit back and soak up your thoughtful contributions to the thread.

There may even be someone you haven't insulted yet.

Let me get this straight:
You wade into this thread under the pretense that you can't tell what the thread is advocating.
I explain the point of the thread to you, by pointing out what you should have paid attention to in the OP.
You then ask if there is no purpose to the the thread other than to rehash another thread.
I agree with you, and note that this means you don't need to bother with the thread (albeit in a somewhat snarky manner).
And now we come to the point where somehow it is my contribution to this thread that is lacking thought, and that I have insulted everyone in the thread? That's rich, even for you.

Done with you. Bye.
 
Let me get this straight:
You wade into this thread under the pretense that you can't tell what the thread is advocating.
I explain the point of the thread to you, by pointing out what you should have paid attention to in the OP.
You then ask if there is no purpose to the the thread other than to rehash another thread.
I agree with you, and note that this means you don't need to bother with the thread (albeit in a somewhat snarky manner).
And now we come to the point where somehow it is my contribution to this thread that is lacking thought, and that I have insulted everyone in the thread? That's rich, even for you.

Done with you. Bye.

:wave2:
 
Damn. I think the door got dismal again on his way out. That must hurt.

Yeah, it's been a tough thread for me. Called out and put in my place. Suffering the merciless sting of personal attacks and content-free gibes from the forum's leading intellectual lights.
 
I am all for being a responsible borrower, which is different from eschewing borrowing completely.
In theory, I agree with this. The weight Dave Ramsey types attribute to risk, I highly suspect, is too high.

In practice, however, people (most of them, I also highly suspect), don't have the fortitude to walk the snake-bite proof path. The benefits can (merely can, I say) outweigh both the costs and risks associated with borrowing, but that they can very rarely (I'd bet) beat out the costs and risks usually makes for a more negative outcome because of what actually transpires in practice. When it's our very own money we manage, we usually do so more poorly when left to our devices--than if we were left to manage the money of others.

Still, I am not against borrowing, and that's certainly not the Dave Ramsey way, but that's me (and for me) and in no way shapes my advice to others, as it's better to show disdain for borrowing, for the audience needs the advice that steers them away from the traps and pitfalls that trace the okay-to-borrow path. For myself, borrowing must be minimal, so much so, a true die hard Ramsey fan could only wonder why.

Also, you would save a ton with a 15 year mortgage over a 30 year mortgage. So there are ways to save in the long run without going full Dave Ramsey.
He allows for a 15 year mortgage. He wouldn't (ever) do it himself, but he doesn't beat people up over it, and it's within the scope of his advice to allow for it, so I'm not rightly sure what you mean by "going full Dave Ramsey" unless you you think he is opposed to 15 year mortgages on a primary residence. He is not, at least not in his financial advice.
 
Damn. I think the door got dismal again on his way out. That must hurt.

Yeah, it's been a tough thread for me. Called out and put in my place. Suffering the merciless sting of personal attacks and content-free gibes from the forum's leading intellectual lights.

Generally this forum doesn't like contrary views. Liberals are no different from the religious right in that they don't like their dogmas challenged!
 
Back
Top Bottom