Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Steve615, Sep 25, 2008.
Probably a wise idea. I'll try to behave myself too.
So Ed got in trouble for following his heart instead of his head?
I empathize more than ever with him now.
By the way, how old would Ed have been when he paid off that loan? Was it reasonable to expect that he would even live that long?
Well, I guess if pay off age on a 30 year mortgage has to be taken into account, no one should get a loan if they are older than 35 since they will possibly be retired when the loan is paid off. So, the new rules will state that, to get a mortgage, you can't be younger than 25 nor older than 35. Makes sense to me.
No one of any age should get a 30 year mortgage, either, but that is another topic.
In his 70s McMahon, like most people that age, could only have a few legitimate sources of income:
- Personal wealth. Of course, there is no reason to borrow money at interest that you intend to pay back from money you already have, unless you are making more from the money than you are paying in interest. That is called investing borrowed money, or to use the 1920s termanology, buying stocks at margin. See October 28, 1929 for more information on the wisdom of investing borrowed money.
- Pension and other retirement income. This can be a choice for some people. Of course, in McMahon's case, he borrowed far more than he had income to cover.
- Work. Even in entertainment, the number of people who have residual earning capacity even at 75 is tiny, at 80 or 85, its virturally none. While a person's earning capacity can go away at any age in an instant (Jewish saying: "If you want to make G-d laugh, tell him your plans." ) that is coverable by insurance and social programs for the young. Depending on being able to actually earn a living during an inevitable physical and mental decline that ends in death is foolish.
No, there is really no reason to live far beyond your means on borrowed money, especially after 60.
There are jobs within the US Government which allows the individual to retire after 20 to 30 years of service (depending on their classification) and begin collecting a pension and Social Security immediately. Since the earliest you can qualify for these jobs is 21, let's set the limit to 41
Agreed ... although I would say it is more a push by "the government" than by any particular person's or party's government. It seems that regardless of affiliation "the government" gets involved in making a mess or at least contributing to it.
According to Wikipedia (did I just say that) Mr McMahon's problems came from medical bills and helping out his family. Unexpected medical bills are a leading cause of financial ruin ... and helping family is a noble cause.
I am happy to be at the point in my life where I don't have to ask my 70+ something parents for financial help ... but they did help quite a bit 20 years ago when I was young and stupid with money. Primarily with making sure I wasn't homeless and starving (no help with the actual debt) which worked out nice as once I started getting out of debt it was more of an accomplishment than a handout that I would expect to ask for again the next time I messed up.
Financial responsibility can be a hard lesson.
My guess is Ed would not have lived long enough to pay off a 30 year mortgage (my calculation puts him over 100).