Skip to main content

View Diary: Reverse mortgages: The final blow killing middle class wealth (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I take it your family sold the farm in the past? (5+ / 0-)

    I hope you realize that those of us who still live on our family farm are not likely to agree with you

    •  This is a case where inheritance makes sense (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps I should have said that.  I believe passing on the means to earn an income is societally useful.  But just passing on liquid wealth is not.

      •  False dichotomy. (4+ / 0-)

        > ...passing on the means to earn an income is societally
        >  useful.  But just passing on liquid wealth is not.

        So, reverse mortgages are OK for townies but not for farmers? Doesn't that assume that elderly farmers are somehow less likely to find themselves short of cash?

        And BTW, what if that evil "liquid wealth" allows my grandkids to afford a top-flight university (or any at all!) -- why doesn't that count as "the means to earn a living?"

        My only gripe with reverse mortgages is the taxpayer-insured bank windfall.

        ...yet another case of privatized profits / socialized risks,

        I think you're some kind of deviated prevert.

        by ColBatGuano on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 09:52:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, you missed the point completely (0+ / 0-)
          passing on the means to earn an income is societally useful.  But just passing on liquid wealth is not.
          Providing for an education is certainly part of passing on the means to make a living.

          In my mind anyone who wants a reverse mortgage can get one.  But if your goal is to preserve the family farm it might not be the best vehicle for you.  On the other hand, if old people are foregoing the fruits of their labors in order to leave cash to their loved ones, what purpose does that serve.

          The diarist started from the premise that the goal of old age is to leave money to their heirs.  I reject that as the primary goal, particularly when it is in the form of cash to heirs who will be consumption based.  from a societal standpoint what does that accomplish.  And if the old folks are foregoing necessities, what does that indicate about our values?

          •  Family wealth is family opportunity. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smartalek

            1> Providing for an education is certainly part of
            1> passing on the means to make a living.

            2> On the other hand, if old people are foregoing
            2> the fruits of their labors in order to leave cash to
            2> their loved ones, what purpose does that serve.

            So, passing on cash is ok if it goes directly to my grandkids' education, but NOT ok if I give it to my children -- who can then afford to retire their mortgage early, and thus afford to pay for college for the grandkids "by themselves?"

            OTOH, maybe they'll skip the grandkids' education and use the cash to buy themselves a family farm. Would that meet with your approval?

            Family wealth is the difference between a (usually inherited) middle class standard of living and a (usually inherited) cycle of poverty.

            ...cash is fungible,

            CBG

            I think you're some kind of deviated prevert.

            by ColBatGuano on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:07:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I only said inheritance is an anachronism (0+ / 0-)

              What is your problem?  I merely pointed out that people should forgo access to the wealth they've accumulated in their houses so that they can leave money to their heirs was foolish.

              I don't care what you do with your wealth.  I don't care how your heirs spend it.  My only point was that inheritance served a much more important purpose for society when it was the passage of property and real assets rather than cash.  You can keep taking my comments to whatever extreme you want, I couldn't give a shit.  You seem like one of those people who just lives for an online argument.

              Have fun playing with yourself.

               

    •  I think the 2 situations (2+ / 0-)

      are not comparable. For some, say...those without kids or siblings, a reverse mortgage may be a wise way to 'spend' money that will only be realized when the house is sold--and if that is after you're dead, who cares? You get to live in the house AND spend some of its 'worth'.

      In your case, a reverse mortgage would be everything from dishonoring your ancestors to screwing your kids. Hence, definitely not for you. Your options are(actually you have more than this, I'm just thinking out loud here) paying off the farm before you die so it is owned free & clear, life insurance for you so your heirs can pay off the farm when you die--or any other expenses for that matter, or a trust(which come in more forms than this non-atty could ever list) that establishes a vehicle to transfer the assets to the next generation.

      I think a reverse mortgage is a way that some people can tap the value of their home before they die, while living in it. It isn't for anyone that has someone(s) they want to leave the home/farm to when they die. And having said that, I'm really only addressing the concept of a reverse mortgage. In reality, while maybe a good idea for some, the industry itself is fraught with bad deals, traps, low amounts paid for the home...there are many unscrupulous folks involved in the industry. That's too bad, because I think it is a good concept--for some folks to use.

      Fwiw, my grandparents sold the farm(and died) before I was born. My dad worked really hard so I wouldn't have to work on a farm as he did. That he held it against me that I didn't know farm life notwithstanding, my situation is that I have no farm to pass on, nor heirs to inherit it. I can leave my hut to anyone / any charity / any friend--or I can spend a 1/3 of its value while I'm still breathing...caution, as with any financial transaction, is paramount.

      Peace.

      The better I know people, the more I like my dog.

      by Thinking Fella on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 08:38:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And I assume you wouldn't opt... (0+ / 0-)

      ...for a reverse mortgage - no one is forced to take out a reverse mortgage and it sounds like it's likely not for you.

      Every person's situation is different - we are a melting pot and financial products reflect that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site