Who Decides Where Our Money Should Go?

from JoeUser Forums

On another blog taxes were compared to slavery because for some, half of their work goes to the government.  Many voice the opinion that those people have plenty and that money should be given to those who “need” it more.  If it can be judged by others that one person has more than they “need”, shouldn’t the people having their money taken get to judge what is “needed” by those on the receiving end?

I say, if you are receiving government money, you get disqualified if any of your money is spent on things that aren’t a “necessity”.  If you have money to spend on cigarettes, concert tickets, new clothes (you can get perfectly good clothes at used clothing stores), etc., then you don’t “need” money from the government.  Oh, I bet that doesn’t sound nice does it?

I’m fed up with being told what I do or don’t “need”.  I’m sick of people saying that they wouldn’t take any amount of money if it meant having to work on the holidays or be on call 24hrs a day.  Fine, that’s the choice you make.  Live with your choices.  Their are trade offs.  The person who works around the clock does it for whatever goals they have.  They should be able to enjoy the benefits that they traded that time for.  They shouldn’t have to make those sacrifices only to turn around and share with those unwilling to do the same.

If you work and save and take on tremendous responsibilities, you shouldn’t have to be judged on how you enjoy the rewards unless it is hurting someone else.  People don’t usually start a business (unless it’s a nonprofit) merely to benefit others.  People usually take on the responsibility and added work of running a company because they have their own goals.  Maybe they want to live a jet set life, own fancy cars, impress others or maybe they just want to have a lot of money to take care of their loved ones the way they see fit.  They should have the right to fulfill those goals when they find success.  That is what I was taught about the American dream.  If you can dream it, you can live it.  Now it seems if you can dream it and it is within what the majority thinks you should have, then you can live it. 

54,518 views 64 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top

wow...

 

I do agree with you on this.... it makes me sick when people think you have too much so therefor you should carry more of a burden to take care of the deadbeats.

 

Dont get me wrong though, as I have stated I do understand helping those that have fallen on hard times or do need help for real. The people I am talking about are those people that do lose jobs ( UI is there and to me its okay, in fact I have used a bit myself in my 2 layoffs this year , but you know what in the 6 months it took to get a call back to my original job... I used only 7 weeks worth.... and that was 4 weeks waiting for my original job to finally come out and say it was going to take awhile for people to get called back if they did reopen the plant so... I dont really count those 4... so its more or less 3 weeks worth ) ANd people that are working but need some extra help with the bills or whatever.

 

The problem comes when you have people that pop out kids left and right or just sit at home colecting whatever they can... you know what? alot of those people live BETTER than I do, and I work!

 

As I let thoughts settle in ill post more but you get the thumbs up from me with this post

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks Watertown.  I totally agree that we need to have safety nets for people who are going through rough times.  I'm not for taking away financial aide I just think our society has moved so far from personal responsibiltiy that we've lost sight of needs vs wants.  We have so many people that don't want to do without anything now in order to be able to be financially responsible.

There are things that make no sense to me to spend money on even if you "can".  Like, for instance, $400 shoes or a $1200 bag.  I find that stuff ridiculous but hey, if you can afford it, more power to you.  I just don't want you spending that money and then holding out your hand because you can't pay your rent and figure I've got a big house so I can afford to give it to you.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting JillUser, reply 2
Thanks Watertown.  I totally agree that we need to have safety nets for people who are going through rough times.  I'm not for taking away financial aide I just think our society has moved so far from personal responsibiltiy that we've lost sight of needs vs wants.  We have so many people that don't want to do without anything now in order to be able to be financially responsible.

There are things that make no sense to me to spend money on even if you "can".  Like, for instance, $400 shoes or a $1200 bag.  I find that stuff ridiculous but hey, if you can afford it, more power to you.  I just don't want you spending that money and then holding out your hand because you can't pay your rent and figure I've got a big house so I can afford to give it to you.

 

Yeah people chose the "luxeries" over paying rent or bills or even " hey ill charge it"

 

YOu know I am not a guy that lives rich... I work for a living and the old lady stays at home to deal with the in home therapy our 2 kids get daily. But I work. I make around 25k a year.... and you know what? we live okay. We have a roof over our head, heck I can even drive a simi used car ( 01 ) and do have some of the better stuff.... but you know what... bills come first and then the kids then me and her.

 

See I should be the one that is all for these free handouts... but I am not. I think the problem starts at the home. My parents tought me that  nothing is free. At the ripe age of 13 i was told..." you want something go work" Now parents think that is child abuse.

Well I refuse to go with the sheep. I understand that Rich people for the most part earned it and that the Gov has no right to take that money from them. I always ask people " how would you like it if the Gov took 50% of YOUR check because there was someone that they thought needed it more than you?" O noooo they dont like that but that is basically what they are doing.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I still think people ought to have to take a drug screen to get any kind of public assistance and for whatever reason. I mean, I have to for my job so why not them for taking monies I pay my taxes into?

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting RoyLevosh, reply 4
I still think people ought to have to take a drug screen to get any kind of public assistance and for whatever reason. I mean, I have to for my job so why not them for taking monies I pay my taxes into?
I would have no issues with that

 

You know my kids get SSI...autistic ( the older one being very bad.... I dont think hes gonna be able to talk... poor guy is almost 7 and only can say 10 words clearly ) and if anyone here gets convicted of a crime the kids lose it...

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Many voice the opinion that those people have plenty and that money should be given to those who “need” it more.

I’m fed up with being told what I do or don’t “need”.

Your frustration about that is totally justified.

I honestly dont know who says that taxes are based on how much you "need" ..... anyone who says that is certifiably ignorant.

i never heard any responsible official saying that ... as for the rest of the population.... well, i dont know if you read this or not ... but there was a study few years ago that concluded that 56% of us are mentally deficient ..... i am not kidding ... that is really what they said. .... i think they are not far from the truth.

so dont pay attention to those half-brained opinions ...

just to summerize the basics behind taxes ( i am sure you know it already) ... it is not based on what the taxpayer needs ... it is based on Two things:

1-how much the government needs to do what our elected officials decide it needs done.

2- Each taxpayer should not be hurt TOO MUCH by the taxes they pay.

every one is hurt by deducting taxes from their pay ... the question is: how do you make the hurt equal?

one answer is the prgressive sytem we have by which the high income payers pay a higher percentage ... on the assumption that their income allows them to afford it.

another answer is to make each payer pay the same percentage of their income .... this option is mathematically unbiased ... but I am sure that you can see that this is humanly biased...

look at it this way ... if your family have a load of shopping bags to unload from a car ... do you, your husband and your children carry equal weight ... or do you expect evryone to carry what they can without being tired?

that is really the whole idea ... not what you need ... it is what the Gov needs and what each can pay without being hurt too much

you can say the gov should not need that much .... no one would disagree with you on that ... the problem is ... there is sooooo much that are needed ... and the people are the ones who keep asking for that ... better roads, bridges, safe travel, steady power supply, no black-outs, safe neighborhoods, cheap fuel, ... etc ... you know the rest ....

we are very greedy spoiled people ... we ask a lot ... and of course we complain when we pay.... it is normal ...

I just wanted you to understand that the argument that you pointed out is a stupid one and it is not the basis for our taxes ...

if some believe that stupid argument ... then they are ignorant ...

we all wish that there was another way to do what we want and pay what we want .... that would be fantastic ... wouldn't it?

but that is day dreaming i think.

Just to make sure you understand me correctly, ... i am sure that there are many ways that the gov can and should reduce its waste and corruption and stupid thinking ... but that is another issue and it is our job to keep after them till they fix at least some of that

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

look at it this way ... if your family have a load of shopping bags to unload from a car ... do you, your husband and your children carry equal weight ... or do you expect evryone to carry what they can without being tired?

To relate to this analogy, we don't have people carrying what they can without being tired.  We have the mom's and dad's (the wealthy) carrying let's say 80%, then we have the older kids (middle class) carrying the other 20% while the younger kids (people who keep asking for more and more but don't contribute) sit in the car and whine about how cold it is outside and how tired they already are from a hard day of doing nothing.

I just wanted you to understand that the argument that you pointed out is a stupid one and it is not the basis for our taxes ...

Gee, thanks for enlightening me.  I'm not discussing tax code here.  I'm discussing the attitude that seems to prevail these days of taxing the crap out of those who are deemed to able to "afford" it and then whining that they don't pay their "fair share".  It used to be that success was soemthing that people looked at to strive for.  Now, it seems like it is just something to envy and to take.

we are very greedy spoiled people

Speak for yourself.  I am not.  I ask for very little.  I'm not greedy.  If you saw the way I live you wouldn't think I had much money.  I don't expect the government to provide most of the things those "greedy spoiled people" you speak of ask.  I will agree that in general, Americans have become very spoiled and greedy.  That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

 

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting JillUser, reply 7


Speak for yourself.  I am not.  I ask for very little.  I'm not greedy.  If you saw the way I live you wouldn't think I had much money.  I don't expect the government to provide most of the things those "greedy spoiled people" you speak of ask.  I will agree that in general, Americans have become very spoiled and greedy.  That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

 
This point is exactly what I have been saying about the way kids are raised nowadays. When I was in my early 20's I rember when i used to get sooo mad seeing these 16 YO kids driving the newest latest cars to school while I was on my way to work in my 20+ yo car ( it was scary! but it got me there lol )... its the mentality that we have giving our kids that they dont need to work for what they get and we are now starting to see this thinking getting into the gov....

 

As a whole this country has gotten away from what made us a strong country to begin with and to be honest.... will this country survive the downfall ( yes its on the way, the question is will the masses finally wake up before its to late or will we become east china )

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

(people who keep asking for more and more but don't contribute) sit in the car and whine about how cold it is outside and how tired they already are from a hard day of doing nothing.

This is the waste and corruption i said we all should be fighting to eliminate ... no disagreement on that ... it is a must ...no question about it.

Gee, thanks for enlightening me. I'm not discussing tax code here. I'm discussing the attitude that seems to prevail these days of taxing the crap out of those who are deemed to able to "afford" it and then whining that they don't pay their "fair share". It used to be that success was soemthing that people looked at to strive for. Now, it seems like it is just something to envy and to take.

I already said you knew the tax code ... i just wanted to list it in order to show that it is not based on what the idiots say ...

The attitude you referring to is definitly what i meant by ignorant people.... no one listens or makes policies based on that idiotic attitude....

I will agree that in general, Americans have become very spoiled and greedy. That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

That is what i meant. I never refer to individuals in discussing general issues like this one. As for you, me or anyone in particular, it is not greed to buy and enjoy the fruits of your effort regardless of what it is or how much it costs... but as americans, we became a country of instant gratification ... as i said earlier, many of us want a lot from the gov but dont want to work or pay for it ... that is greed and that must change

the problem is, even if we fix all that ... high income people will still pay more .... sorry Jill ... but that is a problem i wish we all have .... :D .... all you can and should do is to make sure that the gov uses your money wisely .... if you pay more you should shout at them more ... it is only fair. Just ignore the idiots ....

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just ignore the idiots ....

It's the idiots in the government ignoring me and listening to the masses that's the problem.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

I would be cool with the ideas expressed in the blog by JillUser as long as what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. If you buy a Lamborghini and wear $5000 dresses/suits than perhaps you don't have the right to question where your taxes go (arguably you don't have enough discretion in where your personal wealth goes to judge where tax money should be allocated anyway).

The idea of a progressive tax system in America has existed pretty much since our nations' inception. (The wealthy have the bulk of the financial reward; they should bear the bulk of the financial burden...or with great power comes great responsibility...blah, blah, blah). So it would seem un-American to me to disagree with this premise. Besides with all the complaints of the wealthy about how much taxes they pay: "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

 

 

 

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you buy a Lamborghini and wear $5000 dresses/suits than perhaps you don't have the right to question where your taxes go (arguably you don't have enough discretion in where your personal wealth goes to judge where tax money should be allocated anyway).

That's exactly what those I'm talking about are saying!  If spending like you say means you don't have enough "discretion" about where your own money should go, then all those Hollywood types who have been out there stumping for Obama shouldn't have a say.  So, who gets to argue how anyone should spend their money?  Everyone seems to have an opinion about others but who gets to judge you?

The wealthy have the bulk of the financial reward

How do they get that "reward"?  Are they just handed it?  Some are.  Maybe the people who simply inherit wealth should have more burden.

I neither desire wealth nor begrudge those who have it, yet it seems you'd begrudge me my Social Security Disability check (a whopping $733 per month) because I smoke?

How generous of you.

If I have to pay for your healthcare then yep,  I think you should have to quit smoking.  You know what, if I asked you to be paying for my healthcare, I would expect you to demand I lose weight.  Generous has nothing to do with it.  It only makes sense.  I think it is "fair"...oh, using that word.  Generous should have nothing to do with it.

I thought that was called 'democracy.'

How Democratic is it if the number of people who don't pay in keeps growing and they have as much say as the people who are doing all of the paying?  They don't mind raising taxes because 100% x 0 is still 0. 

Some want to blame the economic mess we're in on the "greedy" Wall Street types and some want to point the finger at the "greedy" people who took loans on homes that they couldn't possibly afford.  What we can all agree on is the greed.  Is it greedy to work your butt off, build a legal business paying taxes and paying your employees well all the way and not want to be taxed the crap out of when the chips are down?

 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since my husband works, we do (indirectly) pay for your healthcare unless you and Brad are 'cash customers.'

Not that it's anyone's business but we have a high deductible HSA.  We also are the employers who pay for the others in our "group" so I would say that my impact is far less than most.

Medicare has coverage for programs and drugs to quit smoking.  My health coverage doesn't cover any weight loss programs.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ways to Wealth in America:

Be born into it. (Your best bet.)

Steal it. (Works for many, but not all.)

Work for it. (Works for a few, but not most.)

Marry it. (Works until the money-making spouse decides it's time for a newer model.)

I doubt the veracity of your statements.  I'd love to see your source.  Most millionaires in America are first generation millionaires. Most were average students. Most make their money in service industries.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not for taking away financial aide I just think our society has moved so far from personal responsibiltiy that we've lost sight of needs vs wants.

I agree!  I am so tired of hearing people talk about "needs" when it is really wants they want when they want them.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Most millionaires in America are first generation millionaires. Most were average students. Most make their money in service industries.

And most who do not know that are the ones screaming the loudest when one of the "most" successful buys a Porshe.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would be cool with the ideas expressed in the blog by JillUser as long as what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. If you buy a Lamborghini and wear $5000 dresses/suits than perhaps you don't have the right to question where your taxes go (arguably you don't have enough discretion in where your personal wealth goes to judge where tax money should be allocated anyway).

So you don't recognize a difference between what people do with their own money versus what people do with other people's money? Interesting.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

So I'll quit smoking, you lose weight, and all will be right with the world, hmm?

Not really since we pay for our own health care and yours.

I don't begrudge paying for your health care and disability.  That's not what Jill is saying either.

What she (and I) do begrudge are the people who complain how we spend our money as a justification for having the government take from us to give to other people who are typically even more wasteful than we are when looking at it as a % of their income.

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

It's the idiots in the government ignoring me and listening to the masses that's the problem.

I can't argue with you that they are idiots ... but they are another type of idiots .... the fact that the tax code is not based on the idea you pay taxes because you dont need the money is a proof that they at least didnt listen to that stupid idea.

If they really listen to the majority of the masses we would be in much better shape.

If you buy a Lamborghini and wear $5000 dresses/suits than perhaps you don't have the right to question where your taxes go (arguably you don't have enough discretion in where your personal wealth goes to judge where tax money should be allocated anyway).

I am sorry ... but that is exactly the idiocy that ruins every thing for every one.

what is it that makes you think that buying a costly car or a dress by someone who can afford it is irresponsible or not enough discretion? each one of these cars or dresses support tens of working people ....

the buyers paid their taxes and taxes on buying those high-cost items .... that is good for all and they enjoy it as a bonus ... so what is soooo bad about that? .... you can even enjoy looking at these items too ... they are of great beauty and elegance.... what is bothering you in that????!!!! strange mentality for sure and idiotic too

In fact, I don't know many smokers who wouldn't love to quit

I am LW.... i am not quitting ... no matter what ... i enjoy it and refuse to submit to the health-craze of this world. ... :D

I dont drink, dont eat much, work as hard as anyone if not more and suffer all kinds of irritations all day long from idiots allover the place  ... for more than 40 years now .... and I quit the only thing that relaxes me without questions or silly demands?

No way ... i am smoking ...

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

For example, the real estate you own (and are building) allows you to lay out cash now but it's really costing you nothing because the structures are still worth the money put into them, (or should be, if we ever get out of this housing crisis.)

More assumptions you know little about.  We and our family will have to earn a lot of money each year (over $80k) just to pay the taxes to keep the real estate once we pay for it.  Do you consider that not costing anything?  Also, there is no circumstance, getting out of the crisis or not, that you could ever get what we will be putting into our dream house.  It is for us.  Customized to suit our family, not likely anyone else's.  But we knew that going into it.  It isn't a financial investment, it's an investment in family happiness.  It is the realization of a dream whether it makes sense to anyone else...it shouldn't have to.  And for those who think it's crazy, talk to the workers who thank us every day when we go to visit them at the construction site.  They are happy to be out there in the freezing cold working their asses off becasue they wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Like ThinkAloud pointed out, a lot of those extravagant purchases that are ridiculed create a lot of jobs.

Assuming your continued success as a couple, your own children stand to inherit a good deal

You know what they say about assuming don't you?  Just because we have wealth doesn't mean we are planning to just give it all to our kids and they know that.  They know they have to work to achieve their own goals.  They aren't getting handed cars when they turn 16.  Hell, except for birthdays and Christmas (and stuff their grandparents sneak to them) they have to pay for their own stuff already.  Our son Alex lost a library book for instance.  Most parents would have just given the school the money.  Alex didn't even ask for the money.  He paid because he knew that it was he who lost the book and it was his responsibility.

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

I just wondered how much of their inheritence (provided there's anything left for them *to* inherit, since the future is so uncertain right now) you'd think your kids should have to shell out upon your death?

If taxes keep going up we won't have to worry about what my kids will inherit.

This sort of thing really gets my goat, Jill, people who live a lifestyle unimaginably luxurious compa

red to us hoi-poloi, and then complain about what it's costing them.

What gets my goat, LW, is people who receive money from people who have worked there way up who sit back and judge them on what they spend their money on but think they shouldn't be judged on how they spend theirs. 

In addition, those property taxes will maintain pot-hole free roads for you to drive on, the fine schools your children will attend, clean water, trash collection, and avail you of all the other amenities the county has to offer, so while those taxes *are* an expenditure (as opposed to an asset) it's not like you aren't getting anything for that expenditure.

It certainly does not maintain pot-hole free roads.  A bunch of that money went/goes to Detroit (we're in the same county) to be squandered by the likes of Kwame Kilpatrick.  For our $80k we get nothing more than what plenty of people in the county pay nothing at all for.  Oh, and we get to pay the Detroit Zoo too whether we ever go or not.

And yes, a home, (any real estate, for that matter) is an asset

It is an asset but it is only worth what you can get someone to pay for it.

It almost sounds like you're seeking sympathy in regards to your property tax rate

I'm not asking for sympathy or anything else from anyone!  I just want people to stop taking our money and then judging us on how we a) spend the money that we make and b) that we don't pay society ENOUGH!

 

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

coming up with the right idea at precisely the right time and having the means to pursue that idea (before anyone else does) is sheer luck in my opinion.

I wouldn't call sheer luck ... i think it is a divine intervention ... which is the same thing from a different perspective... but hard work sure maximaizes the benefits of that intervention...

look at how Bill gates and Steve Jobs got their chance and you will see what i mean.

Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top

Very interesting discussion.

A few points:

Re Being Rich versus being a burden on society:

LW writes:

Yes, most people can sustain life by working, but most do not become millionaires.  They drudge away for 40 or more hours per week and make their house and car payments, keep themselves fed and clothed, and maybe save a little for retirement or a yearly vacation, but the average working stiff is never going to own that Lamborghini or that $5000 gown, and as far as I know, wouldn't spend the money on such items even if they obtained it through some stroke of luck or windfall.

Most people don't need handouts from society.

This isn't a discussion about what it takes to be rich.  This is a discussion that points out that people who want other people's money are very quick to complain how rich people spend money they earned but suddenly become offended if someone takes issue with how they themselves spend money.

Little Whip: Whether you would spend money on a fancy dress or car is not relevant. We all agree that those things are not a necesity. But there is a big difference between the rich guy/gal blowing money on a car or a dress - it's their money.

By contrast, a person who receives money that was taken forcibly by other people is arguably open to a little more scrutiny.

For instance, I wouldn't blow money on drugs, cigarettes, etc.  My wife and I never even tried smoking or drugs or anything like that.

I don't really care how people spend their money. It's not really any of my business.  But if people are going to start scrutinizing how I spend the money that I earn, then I certainly think I have every right to scrutinize the people whose money comes from money that was taken from me in the form of taxes.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Regarding becoming an entrepreneur...

Little Whip writes:

The reality of wealth in America really boils down to the entrepeneur, and one must accumulate capital to engage in that sort of thing.  Yet how can that capital *be* accumulated when it takes every penny of your paycheck just to keep your head above water?

I started out with nothing. There is such a thing as sweat equity.  

The reality is, most people don't want to take the risks or make the sacrifices. And that's fine -- until they start bitching and moaning about people who were able to delay their gratification suddenly have a lot more than those who chose not to take risks or make sacrifices.

Little Whip writes:

I know Brad doesn't believe that luck plays any part at all in creating wealth, and that it can be done with hard work and diligence alone, but I disagree.  Hard work is one thing, coming up with the right idea at precisely the right time and having the means to pursue that idea (before anyone else does) is sheer luck in my opinion.

What means did I have to pursue what I pursued?  You've written enough about your upbringing and vice versa that we both know I had less than you did growing up.  I grew up poor. 

Sure, if someone has an idea and a rich uncle to give them a bunch of money to give it a whirl, then that's sheer luck IMO too.

But that's certainly not what happened in my case. I didn't have sibblings to help me and my friends who I wanted to have in the business chose not to participate because of the risk and financial sacrifice it took.

While I was driving a Chevette my friends were driving Mustangs and Firebirds. And I never begrudged them their choices.  I was willing to take risks and make sacrifices.

But please feel free to tell me what luck I had.  I would say, in the bigger scheme of things, I've had a lot more bad luck than good luck.  

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Regarding Realestate and investment:

One of the most common misconceptions about assets is that people count the house they are in as an investment. In fact, this falacy is one of the things that comes up over and over in investment books. The home you live in is not an investment because the only way you have a chance to get the money you put back into it is if you sell it. And by chance, I mean, just that, a chance.

Few people make money on the homes they own because they forget to include the interest they paid on their mortgage or the property taxes they paid.  Over 30 years, a typical house will appreciate at around 5% which isn't too bad.  So a person could break even if their mortgage was less than 5% after you subtract property taxes.

However, larger houses, particularly houses that are worth more than a standard deviation more than the mean house price, appreciate at a much lower rate (if at all).  Large homes are not a good investment.

When the housing market was good and people were "flipping homes" they were flipping houses in the exact mean housing price. The further you get from that mean, the more risk there is in that house appreciating.

Little Whip wrote:

It almost sounds like you're seeking sympathy in regards to your property tax rate, but no one has MADE you invest in these assets.   Hell, you could rent a 4 bedroom and pay NO property taxes if you wanted to, right?

LW, you were the one who said that one could buy such a house and not have to worry about expenses after that.  She responded by pointing out the significant ongoing costs associated with such a house.

Are you just not paying attention to what you write or are you purposely trying to misdirect the conversation so that you can avoid admitting that you overlooked that no, you can't just buy a big house and just retire without worrying about ongoing costs.