U.S. Housing Prices Explosion Making Repatriation a Less Realistic Option for Many?

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah to hell with living in a decent society with more reasonable levels of inequality.

Yes, it's time all the lucky people give more back to those who did not do so well in life's lottery. 

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, it's time all the lucky people give more back to those who did not do so well in life's lottery. 

 

 

Really, you mean the the people who didn't try as hard as the lucky people. The lucky people have more because they worked harder, worked more hours, didn't squander their money on useless things, saved their money to buy a house instead of having a top model new car on payments. Their end reward is to give their money to those who went through life not thinking.

[ThailandRyan]

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Really, you mean the the people who didn't try as hard as the lucky people. The lucky people have more because they worked harder, worked more hours, didn't squander their money on useless things, saved their money to buy a house instead of having a top model new car on payments. Their end reward is to give their money to those who went through life not thinking.

+1 on this.  There are those that have made money and still fall short because of the rising prices, and are affected, even those who wish to repatriate.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Really, you mean the the people who didn't try as hard as the lucky people. The lucky people have more because they worked harder, worked more hours, didn't squander their money on useless things, saved their money to buy a house instead of having a top model new car on payments. Their end reward is to give their money to those who went through life not thinking.

You wingers are all the same, you get yours and then want to pull the ladder up on everyone else. What's wrong with giving a little back to those less fortunate? 

 

Sure, there are people that that frittered away all they earned, but far and away, most people worked long and hard and saved all they could. Many of these people worked in positions that paved the road to your affluence. and now that you've used them you just want to throw them away without a thought. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Really, you mean the the people who didn't try as hard as the lucky people. The lucky people have more because they worked harder, worked more hours, didn't squander their money on useless things, saved their money to buy a house instead of having a top model new car on payments. Their end reward is to give their money to those who went through life not thinking.

Inheritance.

[Jingthing]

Kindly focus on the facts about the current situation, possible current solutions, rather than old timey morality sermons / gloating I got mine superior dances.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

In my view a lot of the "everything is great" for retired Americans living on a low social security check comes not from logic and reality but more from an ingrained nationalist political ideology. Usually right wing but not always.

 

We are indoctrinated as children 

 

America number one!

 

In some things yes  In most things no. In some things dreadful.

 

Best country in the world!

 

In some things yes  In most things no. In some things dreadful.

 

All truly needy people will be rescued by social programs, church groups, etc.

 

Absolutely not!

 

Homeless people are all either mentally ill or love camping.

 

Absolutely not!

 

We don't need nationalized health care because emergency rooms meet all medical needs.

 

Absolutely not!

 

Housing prices reflect the perfection of free markets.

 

Absolutely not!

 

Etc.

 

 

Yes, getting back on topic, I think it would make sense to go over some of the programs that are available to low-income retirees, rather than continuing to bash the US. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Inheritance.

 

The Baby Boomers’ Mega-Inheritance—Myth or Reality? (clevelandfed.org)

[Jingthing]

As mentioned before access to Medicare is quite often the biggest draw for older people to repatriate.

 

However always keep.in mind that Medicare isn't a real free to patient national health care system like in the UK. On top of premiums there are out of pocket costs as well.

 

Depending on many complex individual variables that could end up being several thousand dollars annually.

 

This link suggests an approach to "replace" Medicare abroad. 

 

https://nomadcapitalist.com/finance/offshore/how-to-replace-medicare-when-moving-overseas/

[Yellowtail]

It is also worth noting that low-income retirees enrolled in Medicare in the US will usually qualify for Medicaid as well, which generally covers what Medicare does not. 

[newnative]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As mentioned before access to Medicare is quite often the biggest draw for older people to repatriate.

 

However always keep.in mind that Medicare isn't a real free to patient national health care system like in the UK. On top of premiums there are out of pocket costs as well.

 

Depending on many complex individual variables that could end up being several thousand dollars annually.

 

This link suggests an approach to "replace" Medicare abroad. 

 

https://nomadcapitalist.com/finance/offshore/how-to-replace-medicare-when-moving-overseas/

     I stopped reading when the article's writer claimed that if you moved to Cambodia you would be paying $20,000 a month for a mortgage vs. $50,000 a month in California.  Huh?  Not sure to whom the article is geared to but certainly not to little 'ol me--or anyone I know.  No $20,000 a month mortgages for me--in Cambodia or anywhere else.

    I suppose we are to apply the $30,000 in monthly Cambodia mortgage savings towards health care.  Okey dokey.  I'm thinking if you can afford to spend $240,000 a year on a mortgage in Cambodia you likely don't give a rat's ass about replacing Medicare.  

[Yellowtail]

48 minutes ago, newnative said:

     I stopped reading when the article's writer claimed that if you moved to Cambodia you would be paying $20,000 a month for a mortgage vs. $50,000 a month in California.  Huh?  Not sure to whom the article is geared to but certainly not to little 'ol me--or anyone I know.  No $20,000 a month mortgages for me--in Cambodia or anywhere else.

    I suppose we are to apply the $30,000 in monthly Cambodia mortgage savings towards health care.  Okey dokey.  I'm thinking if you can afford to spend $240,000 a year on a mortgage in Cambodia you likely don't give a rat's ass about replacing Medicare.  

Do they have healthcare in Cambodia? 

[Jingthing]

Nomad Capitalist company targets very wealthy expats but provides information that can often be useful to less wealthy expats. At least if you use your imagination.

[Jingthing]

This is complicated and I don't pretend to be an expert but here goes.

 

Medicaid with Medicare is no panacea!

 

Why?

 

The income requirements are very low. A little bit over no go.

 

There are ASSETS rules. You can only have a little bit banked.

 

Owned housing is exempt but if you're a renter you're screwed again.

 

Applying for and using the program complicated.

 

The care is on a different inferior track.

 

If you're very low income with very little in the bank and a renter your odds of homelessness become high upon first large bill or rent hike.

 

Even harder to navigate these programs if homeless.

 

If you are low income Medicaid eligible or not having large non exempt savings is what might literally save your ass.

 

You might need to spend down if needing a Medicaid nursing home.

 

As far as rental housing subsidies there aren't nearly as many Section 8 units as needed and more desirable HUD senior sliding scale rent housing typically has multi year waiting lists and always has a selective application process.

[EVENKEEL]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This is complicated and I don't pretend to be an expert but here goes.

 

Medicaid with Medicare is no panacea!

 

Why?

 

The income requirements are very low. A little bit over no go.

 

There are ASSETS rules. You can only have a little bit banked.

 

Owned housing is exempt but if you're a renter you're screwed again.

 

Applying for and using the program complicated.

 

The care is on a different inferior track.

 

If you're very low income with very little in the bank and a renter your odds of homelessness become high upon first large bill or rent hike.

 

Even harder to navigate these programs if homeless.

 

If you are low income Medicaid eligible or not having large non exempt savings is what might literally save your ass.

 

You might need to spend down if needing a Medicaid nursing home.

 

As far as rental housing subsidies there aren't nearly as many Section 8 units as needed and more desirable HUD senior sliding scale rent housing typically has multi year waiting lists and always has a selective application process.

Family member at 70 yr old on SSI only had a stroke, after being treated the family members couldn't stay at home to care for her so she needed a live in convalescent home. It was a pretty nasty process getting her a bed, not easy. She basically had to sign over her monthly SS payment to the home.

[EVENKEEL]

On 3/2/2022 at 8:25 PM, Yellowtail said:

 

Yes, getting back on topic, I think it would make sense to go over some of the programs that are available to low-income retirees, rather than continuing to bash the US. 

 

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs

 

800K usd per unit. Got to laugh, but want to cry over the stupidity. Could instead make a container city, stack up 1,000's of 20 ft converted containers, good to go. Yep, my Ca. tax dollars being well spent. 

[Yellowtail]

52 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs

 

800K usd per unit. Got to laugh, but want to cry over the stupidity. Could instead make a container city, stack up 1,000's of 20 ft converted containers, good to go. Yep, my Ca. tax dollars being well spent. 

Yeah, but not enough of the intelligentsia would be getting rich if they did that. 

 

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, but not enough of the intelligentsia would be getting rich if they did that. 

 

 

 

Agree, human tragedy is big business for the politicians and their cronies. 

[Jingthing]

At least there now does seem to be a consensus here that the severe shortage of affordable housing in the US is a crisis causing untold misery.

 

As far as solutions I don't see them. The so called "free" market won't solve this. It makes it worse. Well meaning liberal politicians offer band aids on a gaping wound.

 

A different supreme court could change NIMBY zoning laws at the federal level but of course there never will be such a court.

 

So I still think for most non.owner non wealthy expats the best way to avoid this misery is to just avoid repatriation.

[EVENKEEL]

So called "bum hotels" are mostly gone now. In 1975 I stayed at such a place in Florida at the age of 17. Mostly seasonal workers and old guys lived there. $27./wk rent. Minimum wage was $2.00/hr maybe $2.25. Breakfast and lunch was a cheap loaf of bread and a pack of cheapest lunch meat. The good ole days. I had a few jobs washing dishes, now there's a job an old expat could handle and one free meal is the norm.  

 

 

[Longwood50]

On 9/12/2021 at 10:18 AM, cmarshall said:

Rents are a problem and the government should give more tax advantages to renters since currently all such advantages go to homeowners.  But buying a house is not a very useful solution to high rents.  Seems worse to me

I love these people who say " the government should give"  Who the heck do you think the "government is"  It is the taxpayer.  

This notion that you can just give "college" "healthcare" "rent"  or anything else for FREE and it doesn't cost somebody something is just mindblowing that anyone can be that naive.  

All you have to do is look at the rampant hyper inflation in the USA that is caused by the government printing money that it did not have. 

Also the building owner of a rental unit is "the owner" so whatever tax benefits come from being an owner are reflected in the rent the building owner charges.  Take away those "benefits" and the rent has to go even higher. Also the homeowner in my state pays real estate tax each and every year which the renter does not.  That real estate tax goes to pay for municipal services such as police, fire, roads, and schools which the renter is getting without paying any real estate tax. 

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I love these people who say " the government should give"  Who the heck do you think the "government is"  It is the taxpayer.  

This notion that you can just give "college" "healthcare" "rent"  or anything else for FREE and it doesn't cost somebody something is just mindblowing that anyone can be that naive.  

All you have to do is look at the rampant hyper inflation in the USA that is caused by the government printing money that it did not have. 

Also the building owner of a rental unit is "the owner" so whatever tax benefits come from being an owner are reflected in the rent the building owner charges.  Take away those "benefits" and the rent has to go even higher. Also the homeowner in my state pays real estate tax each and every year which the renter does not.  That real estate tax goes to pay for municipal services such as police, fire, roads, and schools which the renter is getting without paying any real estate tax. 

So its class warfare then?

Which class do you reckon is winning?

To an OBSCENE degree.

[Longwood50]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

So its class warfare then?

Which class do you reckon is winning?

To an OBSCENE degree.

No, not class warfare.  This idea that you can somehow confiscate unlimited amounts from those who contribute to the tax system to give to those who don't is nothing more than blatant communism. 

In economic terms you always get what is rewarded.  If those who are productive members of society are rewarded you get more of them.  If you reward those who live off the government, you will get more of them. 

Also an important point is that if I am self sufficient I am not a slave.  If I am living off what the government sees fit to bestow on me, I am essentially a slave beholden to them. 

From an economic standpoint you want more "successful" people and fewer that are economically dependent. 
 

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No, not class warfare.  This idea that you can somehow confiscate unlimited amounts from those who contribute to the tax system to give to those who don't is nothing more than blatant communism. 

In economic terms you always get what is rewarded.  If those who are productive members of society are rewarded you get more of them.  If you reward those who live off the government, you will get more of them. 

Also an important point is that if I am self sufficient I am not a slave.  If I am living off what the government sees fit to bestow on me, I am essentially a slave beholden to them. 

From an economic standpoint you want more "successful" people and fewer that are economically dependent. 
 

How do those successful people get richer? Magic? Exploiting gouging poor and middle people isn't a part of it?

 

So called pure capitalism.doesn't really exist and it shouldn't.

 

Calling people communist that support a more civilized capitalism is just dumb.

 

To add I don't blame only right wingers for the housing crisis  I also blame NIMBY limousine liberals who are very hypocritical. 

 

Bottom line neither of us have a realistic solution to fix the shortage of affordable housing crisis in the US.

 

This is OBSCENE.

 

 

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

How do those successful people get richer? Magic? Exploiting gouging poor and middle people isn't a part of it?

Wealthy people get wealthy by providing goods or services that others "value"  You call it exploitation.  Well here are the 10 wealthiest people in the world 

 

 

Elon Musk - $218.3 billion. ... Employs 110,000 people 

The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Tesla Motors is $153,755, or $73 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $160,936, or $77 per hour.

 

Bernard Arnault & Family - $188.6 billion. ...
Employs 19,000 People 
While Louis Vuitton employees earn an average yearly salary of $39,614,
 

Jeff Bezos - $165 .5 billion. ...
Employs  1,608,000 people
Amazon.com Inc pays its employees an average of $101,464 a year.

 

Bill Gates - $130.7 billion. ...
Employs 182,268 people 
The average employee at Microsoft earns a yearly salary of $139,993 per year
 

Warren Buffet - $111.1billion. ..
employees 360,000 people 
he average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Berkshire Hathaway is $131,433, or $63 per hour

 

Larry Page - $111 billion. ...
Sergey Brin - $107.1 billion.

Employs 150,028 people
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Google is $138,383, or $66 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $154,276, or $74 per hour.
 

Larry Ellison - $108.2 billion. ...
Employs 132,000 people 
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Oracle is $136,410, or $65 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $135,962, or $65 per hour.

Now Jinthing,

Tell me how much more "enriched" the world would be if these people were all miserable failures 

Tell me exactly which of these people you feel exploits the worst.  It seems only one company Louis Vuitton has an average wage of under $100,000 and that is because a huge proportion of its employees are retail sales clerks. 

Now tell me for those people working at Google, Oracle, Amazon, and Microsoft all making over $100,000 is that Exploitation or Oportunity. 

Basic economic principle.  You reward things you want to have more of and you punish (tax) things you want less of.  You reward buyers of electric cars to incentify buyers to acquire them, you tax gas guzzling cars to have fewer of them. 

The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Those who are successful should be rewarded not punished for their success.  The world is enriched by the products and services their success has brought.  And the millions of employees all enjoy a higher standard of living because they were successful. 

At $130.7 billion I suggest that Bill Gates has received the least compensation in return for the productivy the world gained by Microsoft.  His software so increased the wealth of the world by an exponential amount.  You want MORE Bill Gates, not less of them. 

No one forces you, exploits you to purchase any product from Louis Vuitton, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, or anyone else.  You do so because YOU FIND VALUE in what they offer. 

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

 

Wealthy people get wealthy by providing goods or services that others "value"  You call it exploitation.  Well here are the 10 wealthiest people in the world 

 

 

Elon Musk - $218.3 billion. ... Employs 110,000 people 

The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Tesla Motors is $153,755, or $73 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $160,936, or $77 per hour.

 

Bernard Arnault & Family - $188.6 billion. ...
Employs 19,000 People 
While Louis Vuitton employees earn an average yearly salary of $39,614,
 

Jeff Bezos - $165 .5 billion. ...
Employs  1,608,000 people
Amazon.com Inc pays its employees an average of $101,464 a year.

 

Bill Gates - $130.7 billion. ...
Employs 182,268 people 
The average employee at Microsoft earns a yearly salary of $139,993 per year
 

Warren Buffet - $111.1billion. ..
employees 360,000 people 
he average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Berkshire Hathaway is $131,433, or $63 per hour

 

Larry Page - $111 billion. ...
Sergey Brin - $107.1 billion.

Employs 150,028 people
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Google is $138,383, or $66 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $154,276, or $74 per hour.
 

Larry Ellison - $108.2 billion. ...
Employs 132,000 people 
The average estimated annual salary, including base and bonus, at Oracle is $136,410, or $65 per hour, while the estimated median salary is $135,962, or $65 per hour.

Now Jinthing,

Tell me how much more "enriched" the world would be if these people were all miserable failures 

Tell me exactly which of these people you feel exploits the worst.  It seems only one company Louis Vuitton has an average wage of under $100,000 and that is because a huge proportion of its employees are retail sales clerks. 

Now tell me for those people working at Google, Oracle, Amazon, and Microsoft all making over $100,000 is that Exploitation or Oportunity. 

Basic economic principle.  You reward things you want to have more of and you punish (tax) things you want less of.  You reward buyers of electric cars to incentify buyers to acquire them, you tax gas guzzling cars to have fewer of them. 

The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Those who are successful should be rewarded not punished for their success.  The world is enriched by the products and services their success has brought.  And the millions of employees all enjoy a higher standard of living because they were successful. 

At $130.7 billion I suggest that Bill Gates has received the least compensation in return for the productivy the world gained by Microsoft.  His software so increased the wealth of the world by an exponential amount.  You want MORE Bill Gates, not less of them. 

No one forces you, exploits you to purchase any product from Louis Vuitton, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, or anyone else.  You do so because YOU FIND VALUE in what they offer. 

Sounds like distorted spin to me.

But back to topic his is your wonderful capitalism dealing with the lack of affordable housing in the US?

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

At least there now does seem to be a consensus here that the severe shortage of affordable housing in the US is a crisis causing untold misery.

What consensus? That you keep saying the same thing over and over, does not make it a consensus.

 

That said, having to pay rent makes a lot of people miserable, having to pay for anything makes a lot of people miserable. 

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As far as solutions I don't see them. The so called "free" market won't solve this.

Where do we have a "free" market? Certainly not in California housing. The only thing the government is more involved in is probably medicine, and that speaks for itself. 

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It makes it worse. Well meaning liberal politicians offer band aids on a gaping wound.

Well meaning? To who, the rich people getting richer? Left or right, these programs are ridiculous. 

 

Los Angeles spent over $600,000,000 last year housing the "homeless". That's over $15K a head, and that does not include medical care, law enforcement, crime and property damage. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A different supreme court could change NIMBY zoning laws at the federal level but of course there never will be such a court.

You mean a leftist court? Did we not have a leftist court for forty years?

 

How would you change the laws? Please, something specific. 

 

The biggest zoning (and homeless)  issues are in the bluest counties in the bluest states. Why do they not do something about the zoning laws they there are in charge of? 

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So I still think for most non.owner non wealthy expats the best way to avoid this misery is to just avoid repatriation.

I think you are right to not repatriate. 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds like distorted spin to me.

But back to topic his is your wonderful capitalism dealing with the lack of affordable housing in the US?

How is your wonderful communism dealing with the homeless in China?

 

[Jingthing]

This is why I was trying before to discourage an ideological political debate  it's a loaded black hole.

 

Regardless of political interpretations the lack of affordable housing.crisis in the US is clearly real and its a very serious negative factor for lower wealth expats that are considering or sometimes forced to repatriate.

[LarrySR]

The progressive policies in California make it the most desirable place to live in the USA, therefore supply and demand has made it unaffordable for the average worker.

Housing rose 20% last year. 

Median price of a home in the state is $750,000 and will climb to over $800,000 this year.