A conundrum
-
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
-
What we have isn't capitalism those banks should have gone under
I would agree. Or really, those banks shouldn't have existed in the first place in that form - a "too big to fail" institution should be broken up before they can fail with a prudent economic policy.
But to lemmings, it's still capitalism.
-
I tell my soon-to-leave-the-nest kids:
Rent is the most you will pay every month. The mortgage is the least you will pay every month.
I'm loving them being here as full grown adults and enjoy my time with them and with our particular house they are seeing that lesson play out in real time. Some big expenses and I am the DIY dude. I don't fuck with (big) electric or gas though, that shit can really backfire.
That decision is true today, but realistically your rent will grow much faster than your mortgage (plus escrow) payment, and your mortgage payment goes away.
-
That decision is true today, but realistically your rent will grow much faster than your mortgage (plus escrow) payment, and your mortgage payment goes away.
As long as interest is lower than stock market return your mortgage should never go away
-
More like blaming capitalism for the fact that it's necessary to get a loan just to afford something as basic as shelter
I mean, imo people should be allowed to buy a piece of land and then live in a tent there as long as they arent dumping raw sewage on the ground in a metro area. But you can't do this almost anywhere due to a number of factors which aren't capitalist, so much as they are just bad ideas. Eg, minimum lot sizes, which mandate you must buy a lot of land, rather than only the amount you need. Or setback requirements, which mandate that you waste a substantial portion of that land, increasing the incentive to buy more land so a larger percentage is useable. Or absurdly low maximum occupancy limits (eg, in my city it is illegal for more than 2 unrelated people to live in the same home). Or sfh zoning, which restricts dense housing development to an absurdly small portion of land. Or using property taxes rather than georgist land value taxes, which allow speculators to sit on land indefinitely, waiting for the value to go up, rather than selling it to someone who would put it to good use. Or auto oriented infrastructure, which ensures that you will have to own a car to get from one part of town to another.
Remove these barriers, and basically everyone would be able find an apartment to live in, or can buy a small patch of land. On these small patches of land, individuals could start living rent free with just a walmart tent, a jug of water, and a 5 gallon bucket to poop in. Homelessness would be solved almost overnight, and it would cost basically nothing. From there, individuals unburdened of the need to pay rent or mortgages, could save money to put towards paying the city to install water, sewer, and electric infrastructure; pour home foundations; build framing, roof, and siding; etc. And once a minimal home was built, they could build additions over time, also without taking out loans.
This process would replicate the way cities were traditionally built for the last 5000 or so years, and after about 30 years or so, we would start to see these areas become some of the most attractive and desireable parts of our cities.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I hate to break it to you, but mortgage payments are not cheaper then rent anymore. Obviously depends on your mortgage and money down and all that, but if you expect to pay half as much for mortgage payments as you did for rent, you're going to have a very bad time.
-
People don't want to twerk anymore!
We have back problems now, Lauren.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yeah saving the money to buy a house is terrible.
-
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.
The alternative would probably be (much) higher interest rates until you get below 80% LTV at which point you're "allowed" to refinance...but no bank will ever remind you of this in hopes you forget...or prime will skyrocket and you'll be stuck in high interest for an unknown amount of time.
I think you should put away the monkey paw before they get more inspiration.
-
I hate to break it to you, but mortgage payments are not cheaper then rent anymore. Obviously depends on your mortgage and money down and all that, but if you expect to pay half as much for mortgage payments as you did for rent, you're going to have a very bad time.
Surely, this depends a lot on what market you’re in. If you’re in a very expensive area and need to take a big loan with a high fixed rate, I can see that being the case but renting the equivalent place would probably be extremely expensive too.
-
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.
Also if you were to default they would take your house and get the insurance money
-
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.
Would have been standard fare in Sweden until recently, but that’s obviously an outlier
