|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45789446.A41A58B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
And that shows he's (a) dumb as a fence post; (b) out of touch with
reality;
(c) both (a) and (b).
I vote she is C.
You've been trying all along to move the damn goalposts.
I've been trying to tell you right-wing zealots you don't know what
you're
talking about. "Poor" to you seems to mean playing golf at a public
course instead of a private one.
Yes, generally speaking _if_ you can buy your own house you certainly are
not poor.
It may make you 'poor' though in terms of what you can then afford !
Then we fall into the debate of what is "poor." The term is often used
(sometimes interchangeably with "poverty") to mean a relative level of
spending power. I am not sure if this is how I would use the term and to be
honest, I am not sure if I would be able to define poor at short notice.
Where I live there are many "poor" homeowners. Lots are subsidized
by government grants to the poor to assist with their housing
and food and medical costs.
It is cheaper, in the end, for the government to leave them in
the location/housing they're in than to force a foreclosure
and pay the presently existing rental rates in the region.
Most are elderly and/or ill. About 20% of all households are
comprised of a single individual over 65 years of age. The per
capita income for the county as a whole is a little over $16,000US.
My feelings are that if you can afford to buy a house, you are not poor. You
have resolved one of the basic needs (shelter) and given that house prices
will invariably rise over time you have an investment. You probably have
managed to save up around £5k for a deposit which means you really are not
poor.
If you look at some sort of generic case of an individual who grew
up in suburbia and have a specific storyline to go along with that
then in the narrow sense of the scenario you're probably right.
Then again, a clever individual can (as has occasionally been done)
acquire a property through adverse posession or perhaps at a tax sale.
The city near me owns a number of properties they ended up with
as owners because the buildings were derelict and dangerous and
abandoned. Often they experienced a fire, and essentially nobody
wanted them. I know of one that was sold by the state for a few
hundred dollars and again abandoned by the buyer when they
realized how rough the property was. Now that the buildings have
been torn down by the city (at city expense) the land is available
for a song (how does $2500 for a half acre city lot with water,
sewer, gas, electric, cable, and telephone sound?)
Interestingly one can legally install a house trailer on the lot.
Even more interestingly such house trailers, in usable condition,
are frequently given away for the cost of transport. Families
who lived in them for a few decades finally build a regular house
on their lot and *must* get rid of the trailer in order to occupy
the house.
It is easy, in this environment, to end up a mortgage free homeowner
with only a few thousand US$ cash in hand, and still be poor. For
God's sakes we're talking about being a homeowner for the cost of
an inexpensive car.
Obviously if you go with out food, clothing, heat, transport etc to afford
the house you are still poor (and will die soon - hunger if nothing else
:-) ) and really shouldnt have bought the house.
Not always.
As for moving the goalposts - blimey. As they move with ever post /BAH
makes
how can *anyone* know where they are supposed to be?
I reckon a pincer action is needed.
I think an octopus would have a hard time keeping up.
I threw you a visable local scenario as an example, not as
"the example." There are a lot of possibilities. As you
quite fairly note, the definition of "poor" isn't a
simple thing.
|
|