This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - marcusbarnes30
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
« on: March 28, 2008, 12:14:06 PM »
grade as earned like they do in every other grad school
« on: August 02, 2007, 02:25:36 PM »
Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank pockets and you would pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you would need additional money to cover the rent.
In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you are, say 30, you will be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to \'make profits,\' that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you would make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.
The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period.
The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!
Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,\' because it is the last good tax shelter\', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get 28 cents back on tax dollars.
Great Point. You argument is flawed nonetheless. It would not benefit you even in the slightest to take part in equity acceleration if you have no intention on staying in your house for 10 or more years. I do agree that equity acceleration really starts to kick ass 10+ years down the road, but if you buy a condo or townhouse with the intention of living there 5 years the only thing you have accomplished is reducing your liquidity.
« on: May 15, 2007, 01:05:24 PM »
I know a third-year associate at an elite New York law firm. He says that good grades in law school are a generally reliable indication of "intellect" or "smarts." The vast majority of those who reflexively scoff at the idea of working as an associate at an elite law firm do so out of pure jealousy. If they could land such employment, they would accept gladly (save, perhaps, for those too paralyzed by the fear of incompetence).
He concedes that he regularly experiences intense frustration caused by the combined idiosyncrasies of his co-workers and the inevitable disappointments of a business day. However, he is confident to a metaphysical certainty that such frustrations exist in every work place (including the quaint, little home-office setup described by the above poster).
It is a fair trade to work under such conditions and, on occasion, to suffer the involuntary sacrifices of time you would have otherwise preferred to reserve for personal use, in exchange for a quite handsome total compensation package and the respect (earned or not) that accompanies employment at an elite law firm.
Indeed, he has difficulty understanding what others find so loathsome about working at an elite law firm (judging from the comments, it seems these are individuals who have either never held such employment, or did so in a manner that failed to satisfy the expectations of their employer).
His "Biglaw" job allows him to indulge his mild acquisitiveness, pay his student loans faithfully, and save a more than modest amount each month, all of which is more than many are able to do on salaries from "lesser" employers. Further, should he decide to leave his current employment in the future, he believes that his time spent as an associate in the elite law firm, working with preeminent figures in the area of his specialization, will open more doors, more widely, than would be the case had he spent his time engaged in most other legal jobs.
Maybe he could be a little happier in his employment (like maybe he could be in San Francisco instead of Manhattan, or maybe working half-days), but one thing is for sure: he could be a lot less happy.
This gentleman sounds like a very sad and pathetic sole. If I were a betting man I would say he doesn't have a wife, family, girlfriend, boyfriend, lover, dog, cat, gerbil or imaginary friend. Anyone that has trouble understanding what others find "loathsome" about working 65+ hours a week needs to wake and smell the blunt smoke. Christ, I would hate to work side by side with him
« on: January 19, 2007, 08:39:16 PM »
« on: January 18, 2007, 02:39:58 PM »
I will be taking on a real estate development position in the very near future (By the way I have an mba from a small school). It doesn't pay particularly well, but the exposure to the business will be invaluable. Real estate development is a passion of mine, but I still have a deep seeded passion for real estate and securitization law. I will not start applying for law school until 07/08. Assuming I get into a great school (strong assumption I know) Do you think I should forego this desire to pursue law and invest those 3 years in my development position or say what the hell and go to law school.
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:42:17 PM »
Again thank you for the input. Do you know whether or not you can choose hours at your discretion or is there a mandatory amount of hours per semester. If it is the former couldn't you go throuch conceivably at a snails pace and graduate 5 years later?
Regarding the payment of the law school...with my company you have to have at least one year under your belt and they will pay any tuiton mba, jd or otherwise.
« on: November 27, 2006, 04:53:04 PM »
You will be in a section, at GW our section has like 131 people in it or something.
My company also pays my way, however, I would make sure if you only work PT for them whether they would still do so or not. I am guessing they wouldn't as it flat out doesn't make any sense.
It wouldn't be so much of a part-time gig as it would be a salary reduction. Say for instance I make 100K (which I don't just for the record
)I would earn a salary of 75,000 in exchange I would be on a set schedule and only work 30hrs a week(off the record). Still being able to retain my benefits
I appreciate the wisdon and precaution JRUT.
« on: November 27, 2006, 01:21:50 PM »
I appreciate the insight. Do you all think it would be helpful to have my company reduce my hours from an assumed 40hrs to 30hrs. Though I am salaried I like the idea of making 25% less with the compromise of working less hours and a fixed schedule. Especially since I don't have to pay a dime. Also how many students are in a given class GW parttime.
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:16:03 AM »
I have an opportunity to have my company completely fund my legal education. What I am wondering is do you all have any peers enrolled in a part time program? What are their thoughts? What might the work load be like?
My field is real estate and construction.
So i would like to work under my in-house counsel in that area
« on: November 13, 2006, 07:28:45 PM »
If i worked in IP law for 2/3 years, would it then be a feasible transition to go in to M&A or real estate if those are my interests or would coming out of IP be too difficult a transistion.
Reason i ask is because if i go to a lower ranked school (not by choice) like george mason having a decent reputation in placing students in IP would i not be foolish to put my personal interest aside in light of job security.
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 10