Or more specifically, we are ashamed when we can't afford things we need. We are saturated by right-wing propaganda that says if you don't succeed, it's your fault. So, like abuse victims, we internalize the shame of what is done to us.
It's a message tailored so we don't question the rich, and as an added benefit to them, trains the poor to not seek government systemic solutions to the inequality that creates their poverty.
It's actually curious to read this comment while several others state how they could manage to pay their debt, but they choose to be in debt because it's somehow convenient for them. I believe them, it's just curious because anyone could say the same.
Part of that has to do with how our economy is built around credit cards and debt itself. They don't want you to fully pay off your credit card debt, and will reduce the amount you can borrow if you do. And if you try to opt out of the debt system entirely, it hurts you as well because you have no credit score from the credit card companies and no history of paying off you debt on time, which hurts your chances to get things like loans and mortgages. I hate debt, and ran into this issue the first time I went to buy a car because I had always used debit cards to buy stuff. Despite the cards being Visa cards that just got paid off immediately by charging my bank account instead of being paid off over time, I didn't have any debt history as a result and had to have somebody cosign my car loan to vouch for me that I'd actually pay the loan.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
I mean, I have a hot tub. Granted, it been sitting on its side for about 5 years, the critters have claimed it as their own and now live inside, and the siding is rotted to hell, but it's there.
I could pay off my house tomorrow if I wanted, but financially it doesn’t make sense - so I keep the debt. That doesn’t mean my net worth is negative or that I don’t have disposable income.
My savings are invested in the stock market, and the returns I get from that are higher than the interest on my mortgage. If I liquidated my investments to pay off the house, the savings from not paying mortgage interest would still be less than what I’d make from the market over the same period. I’d rather use the profits from my investments to cover the mortgage interest - that way I still have money left over. If I did the opposite, I’d lose that extra money.
No, even regular savings accounts have ~4% interest, so it makes sense for anyone who got a mortgage more than 2-3 years ago when the rates went up. Any extra money shouldn't be going to pay down old debt faster, it should be in savings or other high yield accounts.
The value of my portfolio dips too, but I don’t actually lose anything unless I sell. I just hold and wait for prices to recover - as they always have so far. In fact, when the market drops I buy even more, because the same money gets me more shares. People don’t lose their savings because of a crash; they lose them because they panic and sell for less than they paid.
We're talking about an average over 30 years. The market will dip multiple times through that period, but it will likely average ~10% per year gains as it has for more than a century.
I meant more like something akin to the great depression, but I get the point, if you have a buffer to wait out bad times you can enjoy some extra money for less price
I have enough to pay off my house right now but I'm not because the interest rate is both lower than inflation and what I earn from interest, and other invesents, plus the increase in home values. If I paid off the house today then I also wouldn't have as much in my emergency fund. I have 5 years left of the mortgage, I'm paying roughly $50/mo interest which goes down every month.
I'm not who you are responding to, but I'm in the same position.
Interest rate on house mortgage is around 2%, currently looking to invest in an apartment in Europe. The current rates are ~4% here, so it makes more sense to keep the cheap money from the house mortgage than to trade it for more expensive money.
Besides what others have said, there is a mortgage interest deduction on taxes in the US. It’s basically the government saying “we want you to buy a house, so for the interest you pay on a home loan, you don’t have to pay taxes on it.” So combine that with a low rate, and it absolutely makes sense to have that debt and put the money to work elsewhere.
That is still technically true, but it requires filing your taxes with "itemized deductions" wherein you provide a complete list of all the things that you can deduct from your taxable income before calculating the tax owed. Stuff like mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical and education expenses. Back in 2013 up to 30% of tax filers did that. Mostly this was done by higher income people who had enough income and deductions to put them over the default standard deduction.
The "standard deduction" was increased in big changes to our taxes in 2018, and since then only about 10% of filers itemized. So mortgage interest isn't usually paid with pre-tax money anymore by up to two thirds of those who did it before.
The other reasons for carrying a low interest rate mortgage are still true.
I didn’t realize the rate was so low now for people who itemize. I guess I’m outing myself when I say we still do it? I’m not loaded or anything, but we do enough giving and have mortgage interest to make it worthwhile.
Well, we’ve been living the DINK lifestyle for a long time. It would be a very different story if we had only one income, or kids, or both. But yeah houses are pretty expensive where we are. Though from what I can tell, houses are expensive everywhere now 🫥
I know you're joking but I'd much rather buy a very used house than a house made today. At least in the US seems like houses from 20-40 years ago are solid but everything made in the last 5-10 years absolute paper mache dog shit.
Yeah, but if you were younger than 35 in 2022, your net worth was 39,000 USD. It was already brutal, since society expects people to own, or at least rent, homes in their twenties. Now, I haven't heard about things shaping up for younger people (quite the contrary), Trump's dollars are less biggy and the clocking bomb in the form of inflation, they all paint a gloomy picture.
It's debt regardless of whether or not one pays interest. Debt isn't linked to interest. Just means that you have an obligation to pay money to someone.
EDIT: Though in fairness, if one never actually uses a credit card at all, then one never takes out debt, so I suppose it's probably better to say "if one has a credit card that one uses".
EDIT2: Though all this is not to diminish your point that not carrying credit card debt from month to month is generally a pretty good rule to live by.
Here in Australia if you have a credit card with an outstanding balance of $0 with a maximum limit of $10k, that actually acts as $10k of debt when you go to take out any loans etc.
I blame that predestination bullshit that's in the country's DNA. If you're rich it must mean God loves you and if you're poor that's due to your sins.
I had $17k in the 401k when I was laid off from my last job - it had been twice that but there was that big collapse. Raised a lot of kids and couldn't put much away. Always something but never much. That was in my 40s.
I am dug out now, mostly, in my 50s, not to the point I think I'll retire but oh my God when I look at the difference between them and now it's crazy, there is so much more.
I just want to say, don't give up hope. I would never have dreamed that this would turn around and it did. And the kids grew up too.
Oh, sorry, I haven't given up hope. It was sort of said with...a laugh. I do have some investments I've made as of late that are looking like they could pay off big...we'll see. Either way, I still sleep okay at night and I have a roof over my head so I can't complain.
Debt, used properly, makes you wealthy. Every billionaire you know has debt because of the advantages.
I grew up middle class. To afford my prestigeous university, I took out debt (before grant only financial aid). The value of my education allowed me to earn a higher salary to pay it off in two years. I kept earning that salary and more after the debt was paid. It had a high present value.
I bought my latest house four years ago. Mortgage rates were so low I decided to finance part of it at 2% even though I had the cash. I now earn 4.5% in money markets. After taxes, I earn 0.72% every year not to pay off my mortgage. With $350,000 remaining, this is an extra $2,500/year right now.
I shop with credit cards that give me 2-5% back on purchases. I pay off my balance every month and have never paid one penny in interest or penalties in over a decade. My credit cards therefore pay ~$1,500/year tax free.
Larry Ellison likes controlling Oracle and being a billionaire. Rather than selling stock of Oracle to fund his lifestyle, he instead borrows against the value of the stock. As Oracle appreciated, he got to keep the gains he doesn't trigger capital gains taxes.
Most Americans do live paycheck to paycheck. They live at the ragged edge of their means and remain ignorant of finance. However, this is a global phenomenon. The difference is that much of the United States tax code is set up to benefit the wealthy. Adopt their habits and your wealth starts to snowball.
Larry Ellison likes controlling Oracle and being a billionaire. Rather than selling stock of Oracle to fund his lifestyle, he instead borrows against the value of the stock. As Oracle appreciated, he got to keep the gains he doesn't trigger capital gains taxes.
I never really understood this. He still has to pay the loan, and he isn’t doing that with his symbolic $1/year salary. What part am I missing?
Debt interest below investment yield means infinite money.
You're missing the taxes they aren't paying on the yield of the investment. That's only taxed when sold. So if you borrow against investments tied up in the market then it never triggers the tax.
Theoretically their estate would get taxed on the value resulting in a nice cascade of tax triggers but they're doing away with that asap.
You need to pay that loan with cash, right? I get that your assets secure the loan, but without another source of cash, how you pay back the loan and not sell your assets?
Can you provide an example? I'm not sure I get how that works out in their favor. In my view, paying debt with more debt is a terrible mistake and will get you in financial trouble. But I get that they have far more assets than I do. I just don't quite see where it doesn't go wrong.
I borrow $1000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $5000 worth of stock.
A few years later, I borrow $5000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $10000 worth of stock (it’s not more stock, it’s just worth more now). I use that $5000 to pay off the $1000 debt plus interest, and then have some left over.
Few years later, I borrow $10000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $50,000 worth of stock. I use that $10000 to pay off the $5000 debt plus interest and then have some leftover.
Repeat as necessary. The bank does eventually get their money (when you die or are for some reason forced to sell, paying off the debt with cash rather than promises). To the bank this is an investment. To you, it’s a way to get cash without having to actually sell your stocks, avoiding taxes, and letting your value continue to skyrocket.
To answer your question, you can borrow against equity tied up in assets without down payment. For example, if you have a house you can borrow against the value less any mortgage up to some percent of the total value. In my situation i can borrow up to 60% of the value of a house.
Down payments are for purchasing assets where the purchased asset will act as collateral. The idea is that the bank walks away with something if you immediately fail to pay on debts.
Stocks can act as equity assets in a similar way as the house. Equity loans generally have relatively low interest.
As a side note, this is all bullshit, interest is evil, and the system should be burnt to the ground and billionaires rotisseried over the coals for dinner.
As I understand it, one way is to just borrow again against similar stock. He borrows against stock bundle A for a while, and when that loan comes due, repays with a fresh loan against stock bundle B. A and B can be the same amount of stock, but as long as the line goes up, the loan against B more than repays the loan against stock A.
There's intricacies and details in the process, but that's how I understand the basic process goes.
I shop with credit cards that give me 2-5% back on purchases. I pay off my balance every month and have never paid one penny in interest or penalties in over a decade. My credit cards therefore pay ~$1,500/year tax free.
I don't really have anything to add as this is pretty much all spot on to how the wealthy live, but on this one I'd like to point out that you're not actually making money - you're just taking back part of the money that you already paid. That money isn't paid by the credit card companies, they'd never be dumb enough to leave money on the table like that. They pay it through increased transaction fees for the businesses, who eat the extra cost through higher prices. There are states that do something similar with their recycling programs. They give you 5 cents per bottle you recycle at the center, but you paid a 5 cent bottle deposit when you bought them at the store. You're not making any money, or even making back some of what you paid the store. You're just getting your deposit back.
Maybe you somehow reduce your taxes by cycling that money through a cash back program? I'm not well versed on finances, so I won't even try to theorize on that, but it certainly isn't free money or something.
Yes, the credit card spending is technically a rebate, hence why it is tax free. However, I am going to purchase an identical basket of goods and services whether or not I use credit, so it is functionally identical.
Broke, poor, and in debt are three different things.
Broke just means no cash on hand. You can have tons of cash flow and assets but at the moment you are lacking liquidity to pay cash for things. You may or may not have debt. You might have just blown all your cash on a big purchase.
Poor means you have little and earn little and can do little. Debt is often a factor here but you can be poor and not in debt.
People in debt owe money. They might not be struggling at all. Sometimes rich people borrow money because it costs them less than the interest they receive on the cash they have. Or it could be the opposite, it could be crippling every aspect of their lives.
Americans carry a lot of debt on average. My only debit is my mortgage plus the last two weeks of credit card spending. I pay off my card in full every month. I only use the credit card because it offers purchase protection and I get rewards. Not all debt is bad debt, but a lot of it is.
I used to be comfortably poor with no debt. My income, expenses and living standards were low.
Now earning a little over minimum wage and fucking hell life is easy, but largely because I was poor and just got used to not having things. I continue that now.
Once you learn how to live on very little money out of necessity, living comfortably within your means as your wages increase doesn't feel like such a bad thing.
And anyone who has been without a safety net understands that keeping a buffer in their bank account feels way better than splurging on impulsive luxuries.
My buffer started at treat £2k as zero. As my wages went up I quickly started going over £5k and then £10k, didn't even know how to spend it. So I didn't spend it.
Within a few years of saving like £5-10k a year I had enough for a pretty good deposit on a house, like 15% or so. The house we got wasn't even at the higher end of what we could borrow. I don't want to min/max wealth, I want to live comfortably, and there are allotments across the road from us.
If a person has a house they are paying a monthly mortgage payment towards, no one in America would consider them "broke".
I was in debt for several years from college tuition, but would not have been considered "broke" because I managed a job that met my essentials plus enough to pay down my tuition loans.
Debt isn't seen as bad so long as it's being managed. Exceptions for Dave Ramsey fan types.
You could say college and housing and medical stuff should never out a person into debt and I would agree. But that wasn't the question, it was about general perspective in the US.
Honestly, not being a dick and caveat for me not knowing shit about you, but if you are curious enough about the topic to ask, you should take a quick finance course. Not like enroll in college or anything. I wanna say there are tons and tons of free to access resources for learning how debt and assets work that will undoubtedly improve how you manage your own money.
Just to save the search (I use Udemy the most but definitely have not checked out all of these platforms personally, so do yo own due diligence lol)
PERSONAL FINANCE FOR SELF-RELIANCE COURSE - In our course of working with and developing courses in personal finance, we found that the best beginning program had already been developed. As such, we have received permission from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use their Personal Finances for Self-Reliance program materials on this website.
MONEY WISE FINANCIAL COURSE - This beginning course gives you a broad introduction to the many different areas of personal finance, with the hope that you will continue your study to understand better the topics covered in this website.
crazy how people in brazil used to look up to American living standards, but it turns out americans have more inequality, violence, worse education, health system, worse food, and the list goes on
I swear the biggest lie is that America is somehow a better country because it has houses that are expensive and fast food so that it can import what essentially accounts to slave labor when they finally come over excited to work for lower wages and live in cramped housing without their social networks other than the other slave laborers.
Its probably how we make it how people not climbing financially can still feel superior. No one has to pay the debt if you can keep getting new people on a lower rung.
I don't know anyone pretending they aren't broke in America...I know a lot of good people struggling paycheck to paycheck and that's it. I love how Lemmy has become this echo chamber of hate for Americans when y'all are just as fucked in Europe and other countries too with so many similar or different issues. Imagine a little compassion for all people rather than assuming "America bad because America". Just so incredibly sad and stupid to see how dumb so many people are.. that kind of thought process is exactly the same type of people that vote for trump that have this same attitude about "insert race or country here". Y'all need a reality check, yesterday...
I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they're struggling to make ends meet, but not those living "paycheck to paycheck" who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the "living paycheck to paycheck" category are actually the latter. But it's easy to assume the former meaning (it's more intuitive, after all), so those two 'subsets' are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so "living paycheck to paycheck" is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.
It's absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.
If they arent buying assets they arent actually saving, they are just building a buffer against drowning.
Also to simplify your percentages there of people living paycheck to paychecks.
75% under 50k a year
48% of people making 100k a year (only 21% of people are above this line)
33% of people making 200k+ a year
Seems like increasing pay does reduce that issue even if there is an issue of spending to your max budget in america but I'd actually rather have currency in circulation than sitting in accounts for the sake of collecting.
In previous centuries with colonialism Europe was the cause of much disgrace in the world.
After WWII with neo colonialism it was either us or ussr imposing their way of life and values over the media, but overly exploiting resources and weakening both local economy and healthy politicians and putting dictators everywhere.
us bad fame still didn't catch up with all the bad stuff they did and are still doing.
Are you pretending that no one is broke in countries that have mandatory paid leave and “free” public health systems? As someone who lives in one of those countries myself I can, with 100% certainty, say you’re incredibly wrong.
A lot of people are in debt on things like cars and homes, that’s where a lot of the debt is. There is also credit card debt, but that’s a whole other thing. So long as people can make the payments on the loans, and those payments grow slower than their income, they can maintain a given standard of living.
Also a lot of the super rich make most of their money off of collateralized assets as a sort of tax dodge. Them being largely payed in assets that appreciate in value, they then take loans out against the value of the asset, and so long as the asset appreciates in value faster than the interest rate, they’re fine. Since the assets aren’t taxed until they are sold (unrealized gains) and they’re technically not selling the assets by using them as collateral against a loan, so they’re not taxed on that income. This situation also skews the numbers on “the average debt of Americans”.
Ultimately though, this is all a super fragile situation, and all it takes is for assets (like say a house or stock in a big tech company) to decrease in value for everything to explode.
There are also a lot of Americans who are not in such a situation and are limping along financially, trading debt for time, and live at a much lower standard of living.
The US is big on wealth inequality, like most third-world countries. Yeah, lots of people are broke, but lots of people are also making 200k/year. Overall we're definitely struggling, but that doesn't mean everyone is struggling.
Lemmy also leans both older and into the tech demographic, which tend to be higher paid.
Yeah, close to 6% of the population is making unfathomable amounts of money and the crazy thing is that just 6% of the population is still 20 Million people. You could replace the entire population of Tokyo with American millionaires and still have more to spare to claim New York too.
Yeah but the tokyo metro area is an insanely large sprawl only rivaled by the tristate area of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut.
I kinda meant just the dense city lines of both which is still an insane amount.
That entire tristate area is also 20 million people so its more people than that that are wealthy enough to think the empire as a truly good thing.
There is some truth to what you're saying but the USA are special about it. It's like, they try to (badly) act as if they had more than enough money but it's obvious they're struggling badly. Like a functional addict thinking he's hiding it well but in fact everyone knows and there's a shared social discomfort in the charade
It’s part of our culture. It dates back to when America was new. Plantation owners wanted to pretend we had a rich and powerful economy and history and culture. They made everything pristine and gaudy and exp wove looking but there was no substance. Look at the architectural decisions made in plantation houses and how the elements are still used in homes today.
Yeah, exactly this. I have a mortgage and a car payment so I've got lots of debt, but I wouldn't consider myself "broke" by any stretch. I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck, I put 10% away for retirement, and I can afford to spend money where I want without stressing about it. Overall, pretty charmed compared to how a lot of folks are struggling these days and it's honestly kinda wild to act like it's comparable to anything they're going through.
If I have a $500,000 mortgage, and my assets (including equity) only sum to $400,000, then I’m $100,000 in debt. If I make $12,000 a month, and my mortgage payment is $4,000, then I have $8,000 a month to spend. I’m in debt, but I don’t think anyone would call me broke.
The key point in your scenario is that you don’t have money to spend, not that you’re in debt.
Having a debt is not the same as being in debt. In your example, you have equity, which means you are positive in assets. Being in debt is negative assets.
Home ownership is falling which is likely a big part of being in debt for many. Their rent pays for someone else's asset.
In my example, the total of the assets I own is less than the total debt I have. That means my net worth is negative. By any definition, that means I’m in debt.
Again, being broke means not having money to spend. I can be in debt and I can be broke, or any combination of the two, or neither.
I don't think I'm understanding your example then. Is this mortgage for more than the value of the home? How do you have equity then?
With a mortgage, the whole home is owned, and assets are always more than debt, for that loan. The fact you say equity implied to me that the home is worth more than the mortgage. I thought you just didn't lisbthe home asset, which is odd.
Sometimes the value of a house drops and the loan is now more than the house. In that case they'd be considered in debt.
I don’t disagree with the distinction between being in debt and being broke.
Yes, the mortgage is worth more than the home in my example. I guess I shouldn’t have said “(including equity)” or I should have said “my assets and debts”, since to be in that case, I either don’t have equity in the home or have other debts that surpass my equity. The mortgage is $500,000 and the house plus all my other assets and minus all my other debt is worth $400,000.
In your original example though, you weren’t in debt but you had no money to spend, so that’s broke and not in debt.
Personally, I consider being “in debt” to mean having a debt. It wouldn’t matter if the home was worth more than the mortgage, I’m still in debt on that mortgage. If my assets are worth less than my debts, I would call that “insolvent”. But neither of those conditions mean that you’re broke. As long as you have a reliable income stream that can cover your payments on your debts and other expenses, you’re not broke.
Ok, well in your example, I wouldn’t call you broke either, as the debt is currently managed. However I’d call it high risk and I’d call your mortgage underwater. Your debts are more than your assets, so any disruption to pay, like losing your income or having an illness, or damage not covered by insurance and you would be in big trouble. Thats living beyond your means.
Usually the only reason debts would be higher than assets is a drop in home value or taking on too much debt in other areas. That’s pretty much what OP was asking. Why so much debt? Do you think it’s high risk?
We're all broke. Unless you're a boomer trying to sell a $0.50 house you bought in the 50s you paid for on a gas station cashier salary. They're ok for the moment. But even a lot of them are going broke now too. Highest demographic of newly homeless last I heard.
That's called Modern Monetary Theory. It's a fun game until the underlying physics of our little civilizational project fails, that is to say the energy return on pumping oil out of the ground.
I mean honestly some should not be. There is this guy that talks about california real estate on over ten million dollar properties were the person has problems with other debt to. I mean the down payment has to be a mill or more. If I had financial means like that I would be debt free.
Im not sure that financial literacy can really be called fighting the power structure tbh. Like, sure, certain companies that make money off debt might make less off you, but for a person that isnt rich, the money saved is gonna end up spent on something else at some point, so every other company except the ones selling debt benefit from you not being in it. If anything, citizenry that are so broke that they cant buy things and struggle to survive are less able to contribute to a consumer economy and might require the government either spend more money on social services so that they can keep stable enough to work, or spend more money on policing to deal with the increase in crime that comes with desperation.
In debt doesn’t mean broke. People with a mortgage that they are easily paying off have debt. Millionaires and billionaires have millions and billions in debt. Debt itself isn’t bad. Debt can be good.
The average American is living paycheck to paycheck with bad, high interest debt and killer monthly minimums. Many people roll their underwater car loan into a new underwater car loan. The housing market is taking a turn.
The point is that being in debt isn’t the same as being broke and living paycheque to paycheque. Rich people have more debt than broke people because banks etc are far more willing to give rich people debt since they can actually pay it back.
Come out to the country. Just make sure your field is outside city limits, and you'll probably be fine living there, as long as your sewage doesn't drain into a protected waterway. A 3-phase septic wouldn't be too hard to put in, but it's a lot easier if you'll rent heavy machinery instead of shovels.
Just a small correction there: debt can never be good.
But debt can be necessary, but that is only because some financial institutions have made it so, because many of them make their money from peoples debt.
So they spread the myth that debt is good, despite the fact that the world would be a far better place without debt.
Isn’t it insane that 4 people downvoted my comment saying that if you’re making more money from debt than it costs to have the debt, it’s good debt? Do these people not understand how money works?
Absolutely false. Debt is a tool. It's a wealth multiplier.
You can use tools incorrectly, and that can harm you. But used correctly, they can let you do things quicker and easier than you could have without them.
They often are, yes. I'm not sure exactly what "in debt" means to OP. But, when I use it like this I generally mean "negative net worth" not "carrying a line of credit".
I currently have a balance on a CC, but I don't consider myself in debt, because it's smaller than my checking account balance, and that's smaller than my investment account balance, and that's smaller than my retirement account balance.
I don't own a home, but I also didn't really consider myself "in debt" when I purchased my current car.
Oddly enough I would say I am "in debt to" my CC company, because I do owe money to them and they do not owe money to me. The "to X" part of the phrase restricts my consideration to just two-party financial relationship, in my mind. When you leave off the "to X", I consider all the financial relationship I have and (roughly) sum over them.
Yeah, I pay it off about twice a month, but usually between the day I schedule a payment and the day it arrives I've used the card again, so it's rare for me to have a zero (or negative!) balance.
I do like the CC rewards, but they get that my "shorting" / charging the merchant. So, if the merchant is part of your community, try to avoid involving a CC processor by paying in cash. (I think cash is a pain to deal with, so my in-built preference is for some sort of card / phone payment system.)
Sometimes people attack weaknesses. This is a defense mechanism. Also it's better for mental health to focus on what you do have, rather than what you don't. That doesn't mean you're not trying to meet genuine needs. It just means learning what are genuine needs and addressing that, while also noting "I have food and shelter, that's a great thing!" Especially when so many don't.
Who said I pretend? I'm effectively broke, between side jobs anyways. But hey, at least I earned a little extra cash doing some bicycle maintenance and other random help for a neighbor today.
Ok, not an exact answer, but... In 2008, John Oliver had a bit that I thought captured the US culture of consumerism. He basically said that many countries could invent or even build an inflatable BBQ - but only Americans would actually buy an inflatable BBQ. Anywho, spending money, independent of whether a person has it, seems to be a cultural phenomenon in the US.
MSMs propaganda, decades of it, so you wont realize that you are "actually poor" because of the top .05% owners. im simplifying, buts its through various mechanisms, like advertisements, news, politicians.
I've dealt with people that made it to adulthood not really understanding that if they have cash in their pocket, but more debt than that, they don't really have money available to spend on frivolous things. Some of them are my friends.
They will be "broke" 5 days of the week, but spend freely from when then cash their paycheck (or get that next payday loan!) until all they have is change.
But, I've been lucky. I got a degree without taking on debt AND the worst CC hole I had to dig myself out of was not even to the limit of one card. I think most people have to ignore student or medical or other debt just to function...
American household debt is on a relentless upward trajectory. It was at a record $18.20 trillion by 2025, up $4.6 trillion since 2019. With 90% of Americans having some form of debt
Having debt is EXAXTLY same as being “in debt”, it means owing money.
While that can mean 1 cent or 1000000 it is still the same. Just as 1 cent profit and 1000000 are profit.
Or more specifically, we are ashamed when we can't afford things we need. We are saturated by right-wing propaganda that says if you don't succeed, it's your fault. So, like abuse victims, we internalize the shame of what is done to us.
It's a message tailored so we don't question the rich, and as an added benefit to them, trains the poor to not seek government systemic solutions to the inequality that creates their poverty.
Homeless people are more financially rich than most of this country.
Do you see the problem yet
It's actually curious to read this comment while several others state how they could manage to pay their debt, but they choose to be in debt because it's somehow convenient for them. I believe them, it's just curious because anyone could say the same.
Part of that has to do with how our economy is built around credit cards and debt itself. They don't want you to fully pay off your credit card debt, and will reduce the amount you can borrow if you do. And if you try to opt out of the debt system entirely, it hurts you as well because you have no credit score from the credit card companies and no history of paying off you debt on time, which hurts your chances to get things like loans and mortgages. I hate debt, and ran into this issue the first time I went to buy a car because I had always used debit cards to buy stuff. Despite the cards being Visa cards that just got paid off immediately by charging my bank account instead of being paid off over time, I didn't have any debt history as a result and had to have somebody cosign my car loan to vouch for me that I'd actually pay the loan.
This is not true.
are you talking about the comment mentioning it makes financial sense to not pay off their mortgage?
How else are we supposed to know who's better than who?
I thought you guys used race and gender for that?
You said people and folk, but I think you meant men.
God damn lazy modern bigots. Back in my day there was a word for people like you, but using it will get me banned on half the fediverse.
Its implied.
As President Lyndon B(ig dick) Johnson once said
With a star on your belly.
The Jones's are a bunch of chatty kathy pricks.
Yeah, but they have a hot tub.
I mean, I have a hot tub. Granted, it been sitting on its side for about 5 years, the critters have claimed it as their own and now live inside, and the siding is rotted to hell, but it's there.
Sounds to me like the critters are the Jones's now!
https://youtu.be/vudnMLzZjTg
Being in debt isn't synonymous with being broke.
I could pay off my house tomorrow if I wanted, but financially it doesn’t make sense - so I keep the debt. That doesn’t mean my net worth is negative or that I don’t have disposable income.
My savings are invested in the stock market, and the returns I get from that are higher than the interest on my mortgage. If I liquidated my investments to pay off the house, the savings from not paying mortgage interest would still be less than what I’d make from the market over the same period. I’d rather use the profits from my investments to cover the mortgage interest - that way I still have money left over. If I did the opposite, I’d lose that extra money.
Your personal financial situation is not really representative of the financial situation of Americans in general though.
No, even regular savings accounts have ~4% interest, so it makes sense for anyone who got a mortgage more than 2-3 years ago when the rates went up. Any extra money shouldn't be going to pay down old debt faster, it should be in savings or other high yield accounts.
What would happen if stock market dives?
The value of my portfolio dips too, but I don’t actually lose anything unless I sell. I just hold and wait for prices to recover - as they always have so far. In fact, when the market drops I buy even more, because the same money gets me more shares. People don’t lose their savings because of a crash; they lose them because they panic and sell for less than they paid.
We're talking about an average over 30 years. The market will dip multiple times through that period, but it will likely average ~10% per year gains as it has for more than a century.
I meant more like something akin to the great depression, but I get the point, if you have a buffer to wait out bad times you can enjoy some extra money for less price
I have enough to pay off my house right now but I'm not because the interest rate is both lower than inflation and what I earn from interest, and other invesents, plus the increase in home values. If I paid off the house today then I also wouldn't have as much in my emergency fund. I have 5 years left of the mortgage, I'm paying roughly $50/mo interest which goes down every month.
I'm not who you are responding to, but I'm in the same position.
Interest rate on house mortgage is around 2%, currently looking to invest in an apartment in Europe. The current rates are ~4% here, so it makes more sense to keep the cheap money from the house mortgage than to trade it for more expensive money.
Besides what others have said, there is a mortgage interest deduction on taxes in the US. It’s basically the government saying “we want you to buy a house, so for the interest you pay on a home loan, you don’t have to pay taxes on it.” So combine that with a low rate, and it absolutely makes sense to have that debt and put the money to work elsewhere.
That is still technically true, but it requires filing your taxes with "itemized deductions" wherein you provide a complete list of all the things that you can deduct from your taxable income before calculating the tax owed. Stuff like mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical and education expenses. Back in 2013 up to 30% of tax filers did that. Mostly this was done by higher income people who had enough income and deductions to put them over the default standard deduction.
The "standard deduction" was increased in big changes to our taxes in 2018, and since then only about 10% of filers itemized. So mortgage interest isn't usually paid with pre-tax money anymore by up to two thirds of those who did it before.
The other reasons for carrying a low interest rate mortgage are still true.
I didn’t realize the rate was so low now for people who itemize. I guess I’m outing myself when I say we still do it? I’m not loaded or anything, but we do enough giving and have mortgage interest to make it worthwhile.
It could just be that you are in a higher cost housing market, or have big charitable donations. But also, yeah, you're probably also kinda loaded. 🙃
(at least when compared with the median American)
Well, we’ve been living the DINK lifestyle for a long time. It would be a very different story if we had only one income, or kids, or both. But yeah houses are pretty expensive where we are. Though from what I can tell, houses are expensive everywhere now 🫥
True 💀
That's not what being in debt is
Is it not debt when you owe money to the bank?
https://www.moneymanagement.org/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-be-in-debt
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debt
I’m just telling you the meaning of the phrase ‘to be in debt’ vs having some debt. I didn’t invent it.
I mean, it depends on what you mean by that. Anyone who has a credit card is going to have debt, just by virtue of needing to pay the bill.
But if you mean "most Americans have a negative net worth" --- taking into account assets and debts --- most Americans have a positive net worth.
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/average-net-worth-by-age-how-do-you-measure-up
Oops, dad got sick, time to sell the house
You have a house?
I don't, my parents do.
Right? Who the fuck has a house?
I do, but I bought it used.
I know you're joking but I'd much rather buy a very used house than a house made today. At least in the US seems like houses from 20-40 years ago are solid but everything made in the last 5-10 years absolute paper mache dog shit.
TIL that for my age bracket, apparently I suck.
Yeah, but if you were younger than 35 in 2022, your net worth was 39,000 USD. It was already brutal, since society expects people to own, or at least rent, homes in their twenties. Now, I haven't heard about things shaping up for younger people (quite the contrary), Trump's dollars are less biggy and the clocking bomb in the form of inflation, they all paint a gloomy picture.
How much of an average little house is that?
About ⅖
Credit cards don't have to mean debt if you pay them off before the intrest applies. That's how you use them responsibly. Many don't.
It's debt regardless of whether or not one pays interest. Debt isn't linked to interest. Just means that you have an obligation to pay money to someone.
EDIT: Though in fairness, if one never actually uses a credit card at all, then one never takes out debt, so I suppose it's probably better to say "if one has a credit card that one uses".
EDIT2: Though all this is not to diminish your point that not carrying credit card debt from month to month is generally a pretty good rule to live by.
Here in Australia if you have a credit card with an outstanding balance of $0 with a maximum limit of $10k, that actually acts as $10k of debt when you go to take out any loans etc.
I'd be interested to see the median net worth after removing the top 1%, but I can't be bothered to Google it atm ..
It'd have an effect, but not a large one --- that's why one uses median, rather than mean.
Americans are big on appearances. Gotta seem religious. Gotta seem rich. Gotta seem happy. Gotta seem free.
Seem
I blame that predestination bullshit that's in the country's DNA. If you're rich it must mean God loves you and if you're poor that's due to your sins.
Puritanism meets prosperity gospel. The original Jesus would get crucified all over again if he set foot in this hellhole.
Not enough people talk about this. This attitude is rampant in the Republican party and no one says a word about it Not even Republicans
I am absolutely beyond broke on paper. My debts are well into the six figures and my bank account is in the low five figures.
I'm in my 40s and have a whopping $15k for retirement and no assets.
It's pretty awesome.
I had $17k in the 401k when I was laid off from my last job - it had been twice that but there was that big collapse. Raised a lot of kids and couldn't put much away. Always something but never much. That was in my 40s.
I am dug out now, mostly, in my 50s, not to the point I think I'll retire but oh my God when I look at the difference between them and now it's crazy, there is so much more.
I just want to say, don't give up hope. I would never have dreamed that this would turn around and it did. And the kids grew up too.
Oh, sorry, I haven't given up hope. It was sort of said with...a laugh. I do have some investments I've made as of late that are looking like they could pay off big...we'll see. Either way, I still sleep okay at night and I have a roof over my head so I can't complain.
I've been there. It sucks. But it was possible for me to get out. It took years. Be careful, and be ready to catch any luck that might come your way.
Debt, used properly, makes you wealthy. Every billionaire you know has debt because of the advantages.
I grew up middle class. To afford my prestigeous university, I took out debt (before grant only financial aid). The value of my education allowed me to earn a higher salary to pay it off in two years. I kept earning that salary and more after the debt was paid. It had a high present value.
I bought my latest house four years ago. Mortgage rates were so low I decided to finance part of it at 2% even though I had the cash. I now earn 4.5% in money markets. After taxes, I earn 0.72% every year not to pay off my mortgage. With $350,000 remaining, this is an extra $2,500/year right now.
I shop with credit cards that give me 2-5% back on purchases. I pay off my balance every month and have never paid one penny in interest or penalties in over a decade. My credit cards therefore pay ~$1,500/year tax free.
Larry Ellison likes controlling Oracle and being a billionaire. Rather than selling stock of Oracle to fund his lifestyle, he instead borrows against the value of the stock. As Oracle appreciated, he got to keep the gains he doesn't trigger capital gains taxes.
Most Americans do live paycheck to paycheck. They live at the ragged edge of their means and remain ignorant of finance. However, this is a global phenomenon. The difference is that much of the United States tax code is set up to benefit the wealthy. Adopt their habits and your wealth starts to snowball.
I never really understood this. He still has to pay the loan, and he isn’t doing that with his symbolic $1/year salary. What part am I missing?
Debt interest below investment yield means infinite money.
You're missing the taxes they aren't paying on the yield of the investment. That's only taxed when sold. So if you borrow against investments tied up in the market then it never triggers the tax.
Theoretically their estate would get taxed on the value resulting in a nice cascade of tax triggers but they're doing away with that asap.
You need to pay that loan with cash, right? I get that your assets secure the loan, but without another source of cash, how you pay back the loan and not sell your assets?
Just keep borrowing and pay with that. Debt interest lower than yield.
Can you provide an example? I'm not sure I get how that works out in their favor. In my view, paying debt with more debt is a terrible mistake and will get you in financial trouble. But I get that they have far more assets than I do. I just don't quite see where it doesn't go wrong.
Do they not have to pay the principle?
I borrow $1000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $5000 worth of stock.
A few years later, I borrow $5000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $10000 worth of stock (it’s not more stock, it’s just worth more now). I use that $5000 to pay off the $1000 debt plus interest, and then have some left over.
Few years later, I borrow $10000, assuring you I can pay you back because I have $50,000 worth of stock. I use that $10000 to pay off the $5000 debt plus interest and then have some leftover.
Repeat as necessary. The bank does eventually get their money (when you die or are for some reason forced to sell, paying off the debt with cash rather than promises). To the bank this is an investment. To you, it’s a way to get cash without having to actually sell your stocks, avoiding taxes, and letting your value continue to skyrocket.
Okay. Thanks. That makes sense.
I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children. So it could be decades until anyone pays taxes.
And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.
Other reply was good.
To answer your question, you can borrow against equity tied up in assets without down payment. For example, if you have a house you can borrow against the value less any mortgage up to some percent of the total value. In my situation i can borrow up to 60% of the value of a house.
Down payments are for purchasing assets where the purchased asset will act as collateral. The idea is that the bank walks away with something if you immediately fail to pay on debts.
Stocks can act as equity assets in a similar way as the house. Equity loans generally have relatively low interest.
As a side note, this is all bullshit, interest is evil, and the system should be burnt to the ground and billionaires rotisseried over the coals for dinner.
As I understand it, one way is to just borrow again against similar stock. He borrows against stock bundle A for a while, and when that loan comes due, repays with a fresh loan against stock bundle B. A and B can be the same amount of stock, but as long as the line goes up, the loan against B more than repays the loan against stock A.
There's intricacies and details in the process, but that's how I understand the basic process goes.
I don't really have anything to add as this is pretty much all spot on to how the wealthy live, but on this one I'd like to point out that you're not actually making money - you're just taking back part of the money that you already paid. That money isn't paid by the credit card companies, they'd never be dumb enough to leave money on the table like that. They pay it through increased transaction fees for the businesses, who eat the extra cost through higher prices. There are states that do something similar with their recycling programs. They give you 5 cents per bottle you recycle at the center, but you paid a 5 cent bottle deposit when you bought them at the store. You're not making any money, or even making back some of what you paid the store. You're just getting your deposit back.
Maybe you somehow reduce your taxes by cycling that money through a cash back program? I'm not well versed on finances, so I won't even try to theorize on that, but it certainly isn't free money or something.
Yes, the credit card spending is technically a rebate, hence why it is tax free. However, I am going to purchase an identical basket of goods and services whether or not I use credit, so it is functionally identical.
Broke, poor, and in debt are three different things.
Broke just means no cash on hand. You can have tons of cash flow and assets but at the moment you are lacking liquidity to pay cash for things. You may or may not have debt. You might have just blown all your cash on a big purchase.
Poor means you have little and earn little and can do little. Debt is often a factor here but you can be poor and not in debt.
People in debt owe money. They might not be struggling at all. Sometimes rich people borrow money because it costs them less than the interest they receive on the cash they have. Or it could be the opposite, it could be crippling every aspect of their lives.
Americans carry a lot of debt on average. My only debit is my mortgage plus the last two weeks of credit card spending. I pay off my card in full every month. I only use the credit card because it offers purchase protection and I get rewards. Not all debt is bad debt, but a lot of it is.
I used to be comfortably poor with no debt. My income, expenses and living standards were low.
Now earning a little over minimum wage and fucking hell life is easy, but largely because I was poor and just got used to not having things. I continue that now.
Once you learn how to live on very little money out of necessity, living comfortably within your means as your wages increase doesn't feel like such a bad thing.
And anyone who has been without a safety net understands that keeping a buffer in their bank account feels way better than splurging on impulsive luxuries.
My buffer started at treat £2k as zero. As my wages went up I quickly started going over £5k and then £10k, didn't even know how to spend it. So I didn't spend it.
Within a few years of saving like £5-10k a year I had enough for a pretty good deposit on a house, like 15% or so. The house we got wasn't even at the higher end of what we could borrow. I don't want to min/max wealth, I want to live comfortably, and there are allotments across the road from us.
If a person has a house they are paying a monthly mortgage payment towards, no one in America would consider them "broke".
I was in debt for several years from college tuition, but would not have been considered "broke" because I managed a job that met my essentials plus enough to pay down my tuition loans.
Debt isn't seen as bad so long as it's being managed. Exceptions for Dave Ramsey fan types.
You could say college and housing and medical stuff should never out a person into debt and I would agree. But that wasn't the question, it was about general perspective in the US.
Yeah. Being broke is a problem with cash flow, not the balance sheet.
Honestly, not being a dick and caveat for me not knowing shit about you, but if you are curious enough about the topic to ask, you should take a quick finance course. Not like enroll in college or anything. I wanna say there are tons and tons of free to access resources for learning how debt and assets work that will undoubtedly improve how you manage your own money.
Just to save the search (I use Udemy the most but definitely have not checked out all of these platforms personally, so do yo own due diligence lol)
PERSONAL FINANCE FOR SELF-RELIANCE COURSE - In our course of working with and developing courses in personal finance, we found that the best beginning program had already been developed. As such, we have received permission from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use their Personal Finances for Self-Reliance program materials on this website.
MONEY WISE FINANCIAL COURSE - This beginning course gives you a broad introduction to the many different areas of personal finance, with the hope that you will continue your study to understand better the topics covered in this website.
Let's mention some of them
![email protected]
![email protected]
![email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
crazy how people in brazil used to look up to American living standards, but it turns out americans have more inequality, violence, worse education, health system, worse food, and the list goes on
I swear the biggest lie is that America is somehow a better country because it has houses that are expensive and fast food so that it can import what essentially accounts to slave labor when they finally come over excited to work for lower wages and live in cramped housing without their social networks other than the other slave laborers.
Its probably how we make it how people not climbing financially can still feel superior. No one has to pay the debt if you can keep getting new people on a lower rung.
Americans rarely have access to real bread
Debt is not a broke person thing. Most people you'd consider to be well off have debt.
Americans dont feel broke because they have extremely strong purchasing power.
who's pretending they aren't broke?
Many US-americans.
I don't know anyone pretending they aren't broke in America...I know a lot of good people struggling paycheck to paycheck and that's it. I love how Lemmy has become this echo chamber of hate for Americans when y'all are just as fucked in Europe and other countries too with so many similar or different issues. Imagine a little compassion for all people rather than assuming "America bad because America". Just so incredibly sad and stupid to see how dumb so many people are.. that kind of thought process is exactly the same type of people that vote for trump that have this same attitude about "insert race or country here". Y'all need a reality check, yesterday...
I'm American
Speaking of "paycheck to paycheck":
I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they're struggling to make ends meet, but not those living "paycheck to paycheck" who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the "living paycheck to paycheck" category are actually the latter. But it's easy to assume the former meaning (it's more intuitive, after all), so those two 'subsets' are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so "living paycheck to paycheck" is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.
The fact is, on average, Americans have more of an overspending problem, than an underearning one. Did you know that 48% of consumers earning over $100,000 a year, and over a third earning over $200,000 are "living paycheck to paycheck"? Meanwhile, 25% of those earning less than $50k aren't living paycheck to paycheck (a demo I was part of until I eclipsed $50k a few years ago)—maybe it's time to more closely examine what those people are doing, and follow their example.
It's absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.
If they arent buying assets they arent actually saving, they are just building a buffer against drowning.
Also to simplify your percentages there of people living paycheck to paychecks.
Seems like increasing pay does reduce that issue even if there is an issue of spending to your max budget in america but I'd actually rather have currency in circulation than sitting in accounts for the sake of collecting.
In previous centuries with colonialism Europe was the cause of much disgrace in the world.
After WWII with neo colonialism it was either us or ussr imposing their way of life and values over the media, but overly exploiting resources and weakening both local economy and healthy politicians and putting dictators everywhere.
us bad fame still didn't catch up with all the bad stuff they did and are still doing.
I'm sorry, is this some joke I'm too publicly health insured and 6 weeks of paid holidays by law and so on to understand?
Perhaps you can explain it to me while my children aren't being shot at.
Are you pretending that no one is broke in countries that have mandatory paid leave and “free” public health systems? As someone who lives in one of those countries myself I can, with 100% certainty, say you’re incredibly wrong.
And that you were never taught better was intentional.
Propaganda of American exceptionalism.
Cash liquidity =/= standard of living
A lot of people are in debt on things like cars and homes, that’s where a lot of the debt is. There is also credit card debt, but that’s a whole other thing. So long as people can make the payments on the loans, and those payments grow slower than their income, they can maintain a given standard of living.
Also a lot of the super rich make most of their money off of collateralized assets as a sort of tax dodge. Them being largely payed in assets that appreciate in value, they then take loans out against the value of the asset, and so long as the asset appreciates in value faster than the interest rate, they’re fine. Since the assets aren’t taxed until they are sold (unrealized gains) and they’re technically not selling the assets by using them as collateral against a loan, so they’re not taxed on that income. This situation also skews the numbers on “the average debt of Americans”.
Ultimately though, this is all a super fragile situation, and all it takes is for assets (like say a house or stock in a big tech company) to decrease in value for everything to explode.
There are also a lot of Americans who are not in such a situation and are limping along financially, trading debt for time, and live at a much lower standard of living.
The US is big on wealth inequality, like most third-world countries. Yeah, lots of people are broke, but lots of people are also making 200k/year. Overall we're definitely struggling, but that doesn't mean everyone is struggling.
Lemmy also leans both older and into the tech demographic, which tend to be higher paid.
Cries in near minimum wage UK tech work. The only upside is minimum wage is actually pretty good
Yeah, close to 6% of the population is making unfathomable amounts of money and the crazy thing is that just 6% of the population is still 20 Million people. You could replace the entire population of Tokyo with American millionaires and still have more to spare to claim New York too.
Tokyo metro area is more than 36 million people.
Yeah but the tokyo metro area is an insanely large sprawl only rivaled by the tristate area of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut.
I kinda meant just the dense city lines of both which is still an insane amount.
That entire tristate area is also 20 million people so its more people than that that are wealthy enough to think the empire as a truly good thing.
You misspelled "built".
I'm guessing not admitting your finances are shit is pretty universal, no need to pick on 'Murica.
There is some truth to what you're saying but the USA are special about it. It's like, they try to (badly) act as if they had more than enough money but it's obvious they're struggling badly. Like a functional addict thinking he's hiding it well but in fact everyone knows and there's a shared social discomfort in the charade
Maybe the real curency was the debt we found along the way?
What's important is how much you can buy, not how much money you have.
It’s part of our culture. It dates back to when America was new. Plantation owners wanted to pretend we had a rich and powerful economy and history and culture. They made everything pristine and gaudy and exp wove looking but there was no substance. Look at the architectural decisions made in plantation houses and how the elements are still used in homes today.
We pretend we are better than we really are.
Because we want to spend our end of days in comfort
Because being poor means you're weak, and weakness makes you're a piability to your friends, useless, and prey.
In debt doesn’t mean you’re broke. Not having money to spend is being broke. I’m pretty sure most Americans will admit they’re in debt.
Yeah, exactly this. I have a mortgage and a car payment so I've got lots of debt, but I wouldn't consider myself "broke" by any stretch. I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck, I put 10% away for retirement, and I can afford to spend money where I want without stressing about it. Overall, pretty charmed compared to how a lot of folks are struggling these days and it's honestly kinda wild to act like it's comparable to anything they're going through.
If I have no money and my parent five me money to spend to live off, I'm broke.
How is it different of the money comes from a credit card company or bank instead?
If I have a $500,000 mortgage, and my assets (including equity) only sum to $400,000, then I’m $100,000 in debt. If I make $12,000 a month, and my mortgage payment is $4,000, then I have $8,000 a month to spend. I’m in debt, but I don’t think anyone would call me broke.
The key point in your scenario is that you don’t have money to spend, not that you’re in debt.
Having a debt is not the same as being in debt. In your example, you have equity, which means you are positive in assets. Being in debt is negative assets.
Home ownership is falling which is likely a big part of being in debt for many. Their rent pays for someone else's asset.
In my example, the total of the assets I own is less than the total debt I have. That means my net worth is negative. By any definition, that means I’m in debt.
Again, being broke means not having money to spend. I can be in debt and I can be broke, or any combination of the two, or neither.
I don't think I'm understanding your example then. Is this mortgage for more than the value of the home? How do you have equity then?
With a mortgage, the whole home is owned, and assets are always more than debt, for that loan. The fact you say equity implied to me that the home is worth more than the mortgage. I thought you just didn't lisbthe home asset, which is odd.
Sometimes the value of a house drops and the loan is now more than the house. In that case they'd be considered in debt.
I don’t disagree with the distinction between being in debt and being broke.
Yes, the mortgage is worth more than the home in my example. I guess I shouldn’t have said “(including equity)” or I should have said “my assets and debts”, since to be in that case, I either don’t have equity in the home or have other debts that surpass my equity. The mortgage is $500,000 and the house plus all my other assets and minus all my other debt is worth $400,000.
In your original example though, you weren’t in debt but you had no money to spend, so that’s broke and not in debt.
Personally, I consider being “in debt” to mean having a debt. It wouldn’t matter if the home was worth more than the mortgage, I’m still in debt on that mortgage. If my assets are worth less than my debts, I would call that “insolvent”. But neither of those conditions mean that you’re broke. As long as you have a reliable income stream that can cover your payments on your debts and other expenses, you’re not broke.
Ok, well in your example, I wouldn’t call you broke either, as the debt is currently managed. However I’d call it high risk and I’d call your mortgage underwater. Your debts are more than your assets, so any disruption to pay, like losing your income or having an illness, or damage not covered by insurance and you would be in big trouble. Thats living beyond your means.
Usually the only reason debts would be higher than assets is a drop in home value or taking on too much debt in other areas. That’s pretty much what OP was asking. Why so much debt? Do you think it’s high risk?
Because your debt is backed by an asset (house) that may be worth more than the debt.
Who's pretending?
We're all broke. Unless you're a boomer trying to sell a $0.50 house you bought in the 50s you paid for on a gas station cashier salary. They're ok for the moment. But even a lot of them are going broke now too. Highest demographic of newly homeless last I heard.
Because those boomers who are broke were attempting to keep up with those who actually had money. I know a few examples...
Ego
Bad education
It's just temporary trust me.
Tonight is the night, I'm going to sleep and have 🗽the American Dream ™️ 🦅
If you own a house or vehicle in the USA there's a good chance you're in debt.
Having debt is not the same as being in debt.
In debt = your assets are worth less than your obligations.
Having debt = you owe some money to people, but have the property to back up the debt in case something happens.
That's called Modern Monetary Theory. It's a fun game until the underlying physics of our little civilizational project fails, that is to say the energy return on pumping oil out of the ground.
Hey, it's the land of Hollywood. If anyone in the world is good in pretending, it's them.
America is a third world occupied country but everybody is in denial, obese and wearing nice clothes 😌
I mean honestly some should not be. There is this guy that talks about california real estate on over ten million dollar properties were the person has problems with other debt to. I mean the down payment has to be a mill or more. If I had financial means like that I would be debt free.
No part of my education included basic personal finances. My son is now in high school and also reports the same.
Im not sure that financial literacy can really be called fighting the power structure tbh. Like, sure, certain companies that make money off debt might make less off you, but for a person that isnt rich, the money saved is gonna end up spent on something else at some point, so every other company except the ones selling debt benefit from you not being in it. If anything, citizenry that are so broke that they cant buy things and struggle to survive are less able to contribute to a consumer economy and might require the government either spend more money on social services so that they can keep stable enough to work, or spend more money on policing to deal with the increase in crime that comes with desperation.
In debt doesn’t mean broke. People with a mortgage that they are easily paying off have debt. Millionaires and billionaires have millions and billions in debt. Debt itself isn’t bad. Debt can be good.
The average American is living paycheck to paycheck with bad, high interest debt and killer monthly minimums. Many people roll their underwater car loan into a new underwater car loan. The housing market is taking a turn.
People are mostly broke.
The point is that being in debt isn’t the same as being broke and living paycheque to paycheque. Rich people have more debt than broke people because banks etc are far more willing to give rich people debt since they can actually pay it back.
Based on statistical average, or based on your imagination?
I get that we say this culturally, and it's common. But it's not that simple.
I would rather no debt, but I kinda need a house because it's illegal to buy a field and live there in a yurt
Come out to the country. Just make sure your field is outside city limits, and you'll probably be fine living there, as long as your sewage doesn't drain into a protected waterway. A 3-phase septic wouldn't be too hard to put in, but it's a lot easier if you'll rent heavy machinery instead of shovels.
Not an option in the UK
Well, I would say you could immigrate to the U.S., but that's a bad idea for a number of reasons, IMO.
No countryside up in Scotland anymore?
There is countryside but you are not allowed to live on land without planning permission, I presume Scotland has a fairly similar system too.
Just a small correction there: debt can never be good.
But debt can be necessary, but that is only because some financial institutions have made it so, because many of them make their money from peoples debt.
So they spread the myth that debt is good, despite the fact that the world would be a far better place without debt.
No, debt can be good. If you’re making more money from an asset than the interest on the loan used to buy that asset, it’s good debt.
Good for who?
For the person holding the debt.
Isn’t it insane that 4 people downvoted my comment saying that if you’re making more money from debt than it costs to have the debt, it’s good debt? Do these people not understand how money works?
Rich people always say never to use your own money to start a business.
You can’t figure that out from my comment that you responded to?
Absolutely false. Debt is a tool. It's a wealth multiplier.
You can use tools incorrectly, and that can harm you. But used correctly, they can let you do things quicker and easier than you could have without them.
Do we count mortgages as debt here?
They often are, yes. I'm not sure exactly what "in debt" means to OP. But, when I use it like this I generally mean "negative net worth" not "carrying a line of credit".
I currently have a balance on a CC, but I don't consider myself in debt, because it's smaller than my checking account balance, and that's smaller than my investment account balance, and that's smaller than my retirement account balance.
I don't own a home, but I also didn't really consider myself "in debt" when I purchased my current car.
Oddly enough I would say I am "in debt to" my CC company, because I do owe money to them and they do not owe money to me. The "to X" part of the phrase restricts my consideration to just two-party financial relationship, in my mind. When you leave off the "to X", I consider all the financial relationship I have and (roughly) sum over them.
Same here, funny carry a balance, but at least for a couple of weeks I owe my credit card company.
Simply because if I use my debit card, i get nothing. Use my credit card and I get 2 to 3 percent off...
Yeah, I pay it off about twice a month, but usually between the day I schedule a payment and the day it arrives I've used the card again, so it's rare for me to have a zero (or negative!) balance.
I do like the CC rewards, but they get that my "shorting" / charging the merchant. So, if the merchant is part of your community, try to avoid involving a CC processor by paying in cash. (I think cash is a pain to deal with, so my in-built preference is for some sort of card / phone payment system.)
While I have no debts, sometimes my bank account is hovering at a $200. I hate the insecurity it gives me.
Shame. Like several other cultures, Americans are very judgmental of poor people.
I think most americans identify with the book cover, and not the book.
I mean, yeah, I have a mortgage that will outlive me, but I still have money coming in.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/keep+up+appearances
Sometimes people attack weaknesses. This is a defense mechanism. Also it's better for mental health to focus on what you do have, rather than what you don't. That doesn't mean you're not trying to meet genuine needs. It just means learning what are genuine needs and addressing that, while also noting "I have food and shelter, that's a great thing!" Especially when so many don't.
spendy culture in general is disconnected from reality
Who's pretending? Not here! We know we broke
Kinda answered your own question there
Must keep up with the Jones.
Stupidity and the art of flexing.
I owe nothing!
Who said I pretend? I'm effectively broke, between side jobs anyways. But hey, at least I earned a little extra cash doing some bicycle maintenance and other random help for a neighbor today.
Ok, not an exact answer, but... In 2008, John Oliver had a bit that I thought captured the US culture of consumerism. He basically said that many countries could invent or even build an inflatable BBQ - but only Americans would actually buy an inflatable BBQ. Anywho, spending money, independent of whether a person has it, seems to be a cultural phenomenon in the US.
Yeah, I was wondering about the US too. Also, I was expecting to see debt:income more like 30%. Am I reading this list wrong?
MSMs propaganda, decades of it, so you wont realize that you are "actually poor" because of the top .05% owners. im simplifying, buts its through various mechanisms, like advertisements, news, politicians.
Credit
I've dealt with people that made it to adulthood not really understanding that if they have cash in their pocket, but more debt than that, they don't really have money available to spend on frivolous things. Some of them are my friends.
They will be "broke" 5 days of the week, but spend freely from when then cash their paycheck (or get that next payday loan!) until all they have is change.
But, I've been lucky. I got a degree without taking on debt AND the worst CC hole I had to dig myself out of was not even to the limit of one card. I think most people have to ignore student or medical or other debt just to function...
Flexing.
Classism.
Most americans aren't in debt.
American household debt is on a relentless upward trajectory. It was at a record $18.20 trillion by 2025, up $4.6 trillion since 2019. With 90% of Americans having some form of debt
https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/demographics/
IDK about US education and math but "most" in the rest of the world means more than 50%.
10% = not good
Having debt is not the same as being "in debt", as in underwater in their obligations vs assets.
Having debt is EXAXTLY same as being “in debt”, it means owing money.
While that can mean 1 cent or 1000000 it is still the same. Just as 1 cent profit and 1000000 are profit.
Anyway still looks like most have a lot of problems: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/58-of-americans-say-their-finances-are-in-crisis-achieve-survey-finds-302521350.html
Did you make this account today to be rude and ableist?
Hope they throw you out (again)
In debt means just that.