RobDoc
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Aug 14, 1998
- Messages
- 34,195
boatboatboat said:I used 1989 because that is as far back as I could go, and pull up MY records. I wish i could have gone back 50 years.
...
well to look at 5 years when having a discussion about 50 years is foolish
...
ya got me there, if we plucked 5 years out of a 50 year discussion, you would be right. But since we were talking LONG TERM, we shouldn't do that. But if you want to allow 5 year blocks of time, care to look at 1995-2000?
...the rate of return stays the same. variable indexed annuity products are your friend
You are the only one who wants to use 50 years to illustrate your point when you have only owned about 5 years since 2000- you can't have it both ways when offering that comparison to make a point.
If you had purchased in 1995- that would be a reasonable usage of your example (but you already stated you bought in 2000). In addition, you would still need to use the years 2000-2006 unless you sold your DVC in 2000 (but, again, you didn't even buy until 2000 by your own admission and thus are stuck using the actual dates for your comparison).
The rate of return does NOT stay the same when you have to remove money from the principle to pay for vacations plus the taxes on those amounts. You've gotta pay the taxes sometime on that invested cash and you've gotta dip into that money for each vacation.
You still didn't address my earlier comments about having to dip into your principle in order to pay for vacations. Those vacations did cost something and the money had to come from someplace. If you used other funds instead of your invested money, your argument loses more and more when compared to DVC ownership. This really works out better when you actually compare apples with apples. Instead of making up phony scenarios to support a flawed theory.
We're all waiting ...
