I believe many younger families spend too much on their homes today. For example, one family with two grown kids spend over one million on the material cost and labor for their home, he is a contractor, home builder. Another with one school age child, four bedroom home. Another just getting stated with two small children spending over 500 grand on their home, alright they are both attorneys and will afford it, yet why such a home when so young?
In another case, a couple in there late forties and early fifties, with grown children, spend over 450 grand on a home.
None have the same amount, or close to it, in savings.
Consider this is in the deep south where a fine home costs less than 200 grand and where 250 grand would buy most any newer large home.
Consider their parents and grandparents having far more savings, yet only a few have homes where the real-estate value exceeds 250 grand, and the older, in most cases have a home valued no greater than 200 grand.
Could they pay for these homes in their lifetime with no inheritance, yes; however, they would most likely pay on a full 30 year montage.
My question is why do they need such big homes? Why not pay the banks less and trade up, like their parents did, who finally have their best home, which, in most cases, does not cost near as much?
Is ones home a status symbol, and if so, why is it more important to have this outward sign rather than the security of good savings?
I know very few older people in their 70s who have lived this way, on exception, a few who had millionaire parents as children, that would be near ten million in today's dollars.
How does this affect their spiritual life, and are they all condemned to that fleshy materialism? How many of today's church going 'good Christians' committed more to materialism than to higher principles?
I see such materialism in contradiction to ones spiritual life. What about the parents who are, or have lived a less material life, yet saved money for their kids to inherit. Are these parents fooling themselves about their fortunes, not spending?
In another case, a couple in there late forties and early fifties, with grown children, spend over 450 grand on a home.
None have the same amount, or close to it, in savings.
Consider this is in the deep south where a fine home costs less than 200 grand and where 250 grand would buy most any newer large home.
Consider their parents and grandparents having far more savings, yet only a few have homes where the real-estate value exceeds 250 grand, and the older, in most cases have a home valued no greater than 200 grand.
Could they pay for these homes in their lifetime with no inheritance, yes; however, they would most likely pay on a full 30 year montage.
My question is why do they need such big homes? Why not pay the banks less and trade up, like their parents did, who finally have their best home, which, in most cases, does not cost near as much?
Is ones home a status symbol, and if so, why is it more important to have this outward sign rather than the security of good savings?
I know very few older people in their 70s who have lived this way, on exception, a few who had millionaire parents as children, that would be near ten million in today's dollars.
How does this affect their spiritual life, and are they all condemned to that fleshy materialism? How many of today's church going 'good Christians' committed more to materialism than to higher principles?
I see such materialism in contradiction to ones spiritual life. What about the parents who are, or have lived a less material life, yet saved money for their kids to inherit. Are these parents fooling themselves about their fortunes, not spending?
