A conundrum
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not buy a house, inherit a house from our boomer parents.
-
The deposit is to cover expenses/losses that arise out of defaults. Housing loans have been lile this forever. Not everything is a conspiracy.
the deposit is the keep young, inexperienced and glowy-eyes people from making commitments they don't have the stamina to handle.
it happens a lot that 20 year olds want to buy a house with their new partner that they think they're gonna be together with for the rest of their lives, only to have it all fall apart 5 years later. forcing to you save up a bit before actually buying the house means you go through a lot of experiences before you actually buy a house, which makes it more likely that you'll have the far-sightedness that's needed to actually buy a house.
-
This post did not contain any content.
500 Vs 1000? What year is it?
-
the deposit is the keep young, inexperienced and glowy-eyes people from making commitments they don't have the stamina to handle.
it happens a lot that 20 year olds want to buy a house with their new partner that they think they're gonna be together with for the rest of their lives, only to have it all fall apart 5 years later. forcing to you save up a bit before actually buying the house means you go through a lot of experiences before you actually buy a house, which makes it more likely that you'll have the far-sightedness that's needed to actually buy a house.
Not necessarily young but inexperienced yes
-
They did this before it worked out really well around 2008
Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too hard to get.
Also Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too easy to get.
-
I always find this to be such a poor argument.
Yes unexpected maintenance can sometimes be a huge problem, especially in the first couple of years, but after that you can tap into home equity and repair say a roof. Everything else while expensive is still cheaper than renting. Using the OP's example 1k vs 500, I can assure you you will never have consistent 500 repairs per month.
As for the taxes the people in my city nearly went ballistic when the city increased the rate by 5%. At the end of the year it costed me $200. Per month that's about $16. I've never lived in any apartment anywhere where rent didn't increase by at least $50 per month each year. Even if someone had a home twice as valuable that's still a very small monthly cost.
Additional once you get past the first 3ish years rent prices have greatly outpaced your mortgage and you will be saving a lot of money compared to of you were renting.
I'd like to wrap up with a question. If owning a home was such a sink of resources why do people become landlords?
Speaking to the post, I feel like there is a tipping point between OP and your points and the post is showing that. If you can convince the bank to loan you the money somehow you then start to build more capital which can pull you out of being “poor”. There are many variables and wildly varying degrees of this scenario, but once you start your ownership experience, some people can work it quite hard and build enough capital to own multiple residences and rent them out. (Those already in possession of capital are out of scope of OPs post.)
Rent is paying the landlord for everything every month. No repairs lately? Too bad, you’ll still pay for the possibility. The exchange is that you should never worry about repairs (or taxes) as the landlord handles everything. Once the landlord figures his margins are too tight, they raise the rent. Lots of variables here too and that makes blanket statements about which is better more difficult. I advocate home ownership, but I feel terrible for young people. Runaway greed by those that already had the capital has changed things. The young folks I know that are able to manage it all had help from relatives.
The act of convincing the bank and owning a home is getting more and more difficult. Impossible in many places and improbable in others without Herculean efforts. OPs post expresses this perspective.
-
I can't believe someone watermarked their worthless reply to a post that said the same thing more subtly and smartly.
Covid was the wake up call I needed to realize that while I understand the nuance many others need the point made for them to understand the point of the scenario. We understand Eleanor. Some understand Callum.
-
Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too hard to get.
Also Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too easy to get.
It's almost like capitalism is bullshit
-
Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too hard to get.
Also Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too easy to get.
More like blaming capitalism for the fact that it's necessary to get a loan just to afford something as basic as shelter
-
the deposit is the keep young, inexperienced and glowy-eyes people from making commitments they don't have the stamina to handle.
it happens a lot that 20 year olds want to buy a house with their new partner that they think they're gonna be together with for the rest of their lives, only to have it all fall apart 5 years later. forcing to you save up a bit before actually buying the house means you go through a lot of experiences before you actually buy a house, which makes it more likely that you'll have the far-sightedness that's needed to actually buy a house.
That’s one thing, but there’s definitely a factor of "if there's a market downturn AND we have to foreclose, we don’t want to lose too much".
-
Actually i guess the bigger issue is that we're gonna be unemployed in 15 years due to a declining demand of human labor and then who pays back what?
Today you could afford the pay-back rate, but not in the future, and the banks are well aware of that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Right? You don't need to exist long term. Fuck off and die, meat.
Edit: by which i of course mean 'i dont need you to exist'. Which is the same thing, right?
-
Whats going on is decades of mismanagement of property taxes and city zoning. People fight tooth and nail to keep their property taxes low, and eventually the city has to do a big increase because they failed to increase incrementally. The bigger issue is how poorly we zone and design most north american cities.
The average car dependant suburb costs more to maintain than it generates in tax revenue. A denser area like mixed use neighbourhoods and "missing middle" housing fares far better and generates enough that it often ends up subsidizing the rest of the city, the same is usually true for denser downtowns. That trend is dying off as those denser areas demolish tax revenue generating businesses and homes to pave parking lots that don't generate taxes to park cars from the suburbs that don't generate enough taxes.
You can't afford a home because for decades suburbs were given a massive tax break while denser downtowns (guess where the poors have to rent and ultimately fund the property taxes) have to subsidize car dependant expensive to maintain subdivisions (which is usually for middle class or wealthier people, especially when built new). Add in some racial demographics and we've basically engineered every city to have secret tax cuts for anyone rich enough to get into the suburbs.
The best part is, many cities are keeping the cycle going because the only way they are paying for maintaince of an old subdivision is by using the devleopment taxes and fees from a new subdivision. This is not sustainable and ultimately equates to kicking the can down the road to let a future generation figure it out (which is literally as simple as building cities densely again, as they had been built for 100s of years).
This hasn't even touched yet on the urban sprawl, energy ineffeciency, and secondary effects of car dependancy that have all spawned from "the american dream" of suburbia. We seriously need to reconsider how we zone, build, and get around our urban spaces.
Hello, fellow strong towns enthusiast!
-
And while we're ranting about this, can we throw PMI and whomever came up with it on the bonfire where they belong?
Your telling me that I need to pay for you to have insurance in case I default while your also charging me interest who's very purpose is to offset risk? Why am I paying to offset your risk FUCKING TWICE AND HOW IS THIS FUCKING LEGAL.
Shit infuriates me. I want all the bankers to get William Wallace on live TV, recorded and played back once a year during a mandatory viewing window so that we never, ever, forget.
Its legal because value comes from ownership, not from doing things.
And if that sounds insane; you're a fucking commie.
-
Not buy a house, inherit a house from our boomer parents.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Who didnt reverse mortgage it to pay for extravagant vacations. Taking the last spots to see shit like the coral reefs they murdered.
-
More like blaming capitalism for the fact that it's necessary to get a loan just to afford something as basic as shelter
Hwy. How dare you blame systems. Only proximal causes can be addressed!
-
Its legal because value comes from ownership, not from doing things.
And if that sounds insane; you're a fucking commie.
Is it ironic? We can't know nowadays.
-
Not buy a house, inherit a house from our boomer parents.
They'll sell it to pay for the elderly homes.
You'll only inherit the clay ashtray that you made for them in 3rd grade.
-
Speaking to the post, I feel like there is a tipping point between OP and your points and the post is showing that. If you can convince the bank to loan you the money somehow you then start to build more capital which can pull you out of being “poor”. There are many variables and wildly varying degrees of this scenario, but once you start your ownership experience, some people can work it quite hard and build enough capital to own multiple residences and rent them out. (Those already in possession of capital are out of scope of OPs post.)
Rent is paying the landlord for everything every month. No repairs lately? Too bad, you’ll still pay for the possibility. The exchange is that you should never worry about repairs (or taxes) as the landlord handles everything. Once the landlord figures his margins are too tight, they raise the rent. Lots of variables here too and that makes blanket statements about which is better more difficult. I advocate home ownership, but I feel terrible for young people. Runaway greed by those that already had the capital has changed things. The young folks I know that are able to manage it all had help from relatives.
The act of convincing the bank and owning a home is getting more and more difficult. Impossible in many places and improbable in others without Herculean efforts. OPs post expresses this perspective.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I personally grew up quite impoverished and me and my wife did manage to get our home in medium COL area. We don't have exceptionally high paying jobs nor did we have any help from our families. We just made a lot of effort to build our credit. We're also not old at all under 30 to not dox myself too much.
A lot of people simply have some wrong assumptions about the amount needed to get a loan. We put down 3%, sure we didn't get the most competitive rate and our payment is higher, but it worked out to the cost of our then comparable rent. There's quite a few federal programs that ensure the opportunity for a low downpayment mortgage for first time homeowners.
But that was just slightly before interest rates went insane, kinda on the way up
-
Where y'all finding houses for 500/month with a 25k downpayment?
Seems cheap af. If you only did a 25k downpayment the mortgage would certainly be more expensive than rent where I'm at.
My house was cheap in a shit area (like knuckle draggers shouting at hotels shit) and that cost me £800 a month 20 years ago.
And that was with a massive deposit. Still, paid that shit off now.
-
Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too hard to get.
Also Lemmy: blames capitalism for making loans too easy to get.
What we have isn't capitalism those banks should have gone under
