My issue wasn’t getting pre-approved, it was being able to actually afford the mortgage amount I was pre-approved for. A lot of these companies don’t give a damn if you can actually afford the mortgages they offer, because they know you’ll either figure it out or go homeless trying.
We probably live in different countries, but where I live it’s more like you can’t get pre-approved for anything unless you either have a large amount of money saved up, or your salary is high enough that it’s far beyond what you would reasonably need to get paid to afford the mortgage.
You live in Germany don’t you
Or any country with responsible lending rules.
Lenders are not your friends. They’d take your organs as payment if they were allowed. The rules are there to stop them doing bad lending and then hounding you to your death.
Fudging the numbers a bit, but let’s say I’m paying $3000/mo for a mortgage. Brokers tell me I can afford $10,000/mo.
I cannot afford $10,000/mo.
The corrosive corollary to ever-rising real estate valuations is that there is no incentive to keep buildings like condos nice or neighborhoods clean, someone will buy at the inflated price anyway since they all are inflated.
So basically I feel in Canada we live in a system that pulls valuation out of thin air, produces nothing, incentivizes no one, yet allows everything.
Same shit happening in Scotland. Knobheads makin bids above asking price on slum complexes in the city like it’s fooken millionaire row. Last landlord I had chucked a new tenant out and returned her deposit for complaining about the broken shower basin cos he cannae be arsed. Not exaggerating.
It’s mad given that Scotland technically is quite pro-renter. You just can’t enforce anything so landlords have learned not to give a fuck. A friend viewed a tennament they were trying to let with no kitchen (as in no cooker fridge or sink). Like something out of trainspotting.
Even just renting an apartment is full of bullshit.
“The apartment is $1300 a month.”
“Perfect, I make $2000 a month.”
“No. You’re gonna need to make $3900 a month before we will rent to you.”
I live in the Toronto area and rent here is up to like $2600 for a 2 bedroom. Why haven’t we burned shit down? Why do we take this??
Im no leader but I’ll gladly build some gallows and die for my kid’s generation. Im also a vegetarian, but I’m willing to roast and take a bite of the billionaire just to show my conviction. I think we should actually literally do it with one to prove a point
Yeah, the 3x salary requirements are insane when housing accounts for almost 50% of people’s take home pay in most places.
3x rent is pre tax, 50% is after tax.
Just a small clarification.
Going to be wild when people just give up on society and just start eating the ruling and ownership class. I tried warning these assholes if they didn’t give something. Then they would doom their existence. And now you have more people radicalizing everyday because they are being put on the streets.
Bad take. In my situation it went from us paying $1900 in rent to paying $4500 in mortgage.
It depends on the market. Around here is similar, the market rental rate for a house is lower than what even the most lowest realistic monthly mortgage payment would be, but only by about 10% or so. I don’t know if you also dramatically upgraded your home quality.
Not too long ago around here it was the same as the post, renting higher than mortgage.
Even then over long term, the mortgage would make sense, since you can sell and get back some of the money and your principal and interest won’t magically get bigger because of market conditions.
In a sane world renting should be a touch cheaper than mortgage over the first few years, with tenants that only plan to be there 2 or three years. The owner gets a little income while taxes and insurance get paid and their asset maintained, and the tenant gets an easier and cheaper house to move in and out of for a short term living arrangement. Problem being when the market is upside down and when tenants are stuck never being able to build equity.
Well you made a choice. Either you knew you could make the payments for the price range you bought into, or you didn’t read the repayments figures on any of the documents the bank sent you and made a massive decision uninformed.
I pay 20% more for my mortgage than I did on my rent, but the house is also better, I can easily afford it, and I made that choice willingly and I’m happy with that arrangement.
The bad take I was referring to was OP claiming the mortgage payment would be lower than the rent payment. In the US this is almost never the case. Edit: we have fixed rate mortgages in the US. My payment will only go up because of taxes or insurance.
Most countries have fixed-rate mortgages. Most rental properties are also mortgaged. So a renter is paying for maintenance/insurance/tax costs, the landlord’s profits margin and the landlord’s mortgage.
This isn’t usually the case in the UK. Rent is generally much, much higher than mortgage payments.
The deposit is not to prove you can make the repayments.
Housing markets do, occasionally, go backwards in value.
If you have a loan for a house which is more than the value of the house you would have an incentive to just stop paying.
Thats why the bank needs a buffer, in the form of a deposit. Its not really nefarious.
If the loan is fixed at an amount or matched to inflation, you’d still have to pay or lose the house.
That’s still a pretty bullshit excuse, because it’s not like all that money you’ve already spent on paying the house will magically come back to you, you’d still be homeless if you lose the house, and the bank would still have a house available for the market, even if it’s at a lower value than before.
And if it gets so bad that the bank starts losing money… no worries, the government will simply bail them out like usual!
I’m not sure if you’ve really understood the dynamic.
Suppose you buy for $700k, pay off $50k, but then the market collapses and the property is only worth $600k.
You’ll be $50k better off if you just stop paying and let the bank foreclose.
You’ll be $50k better off if you just stop paying and let the bank foreclose.
And do what? Live under a bridge? You would still have to buy a new house. Are you going to find similar house at $600k easily? Are interest rates still low despite market collapse? Will banks lend you money if just foreclosed?
Don’t be daft.
I’m not providing advice regarding what someone ought to do when they find themselves in negative equity.
I’m explaining the requirement for buyers to start with a reasonable amount of equity.
Once an owner falls into negative equity, they have an incentive to default on the loan. Yes there will be consequences, but the fact remains they will he weighing those consequences against the financial incentive to default.
The “better off” in my comment is an impartial objective calculation.
But what you’re saying is simply not true. Where I live you have to provide 20% of equity to get a mortgage but you can’t default when the prices go down. No bank offers mortgage covered in 100% by the house. If you owe the bank $600k you owe then $600k, that’s it. If you default and you’re house now only costs $500k you still owe them $100k.
So the 20% requirement has nothing to do with negative equity protections. It’s to limit the banks exposure in case you’re unable to pay.
Sorry chief, you’re just not picking up what I’m laying down.
Of course you still owe the money, you’re just much less likely to pay.
I don’t know how this works in US but where I live when you owe bank money they will simply garnish your wages and benefits. No one is defaulting on their mortgage to save money. That’s just not a thing. I personally know people who were paying their mortgages for many many years even though their house was worth way less then the mortgage. You just suck it up and hope the price will eventually go up. If it doesn’t it’s still better then living on the street.
I seem to completely misunderstand the dynamic.
As I see it, you have paid $700k for the house with the bank’s money (in this thread there is no deposit), bought back some of the house from the bank with $50k of your own money and then lost the house so you’re out $50k with no house.
If the bank does pay out some of the value of the house to you based on equity, it’s just going to be a smaller amount than $50k since the value of the house is lower and part of your repayment went to interest so you don’t even get $50k worth of equity. This feels like a worse position to me.
Like the bank has lost money for sure, but we are not getting that are we?
You’re overthinking it.
The loan history is not relevant. The $50k you paid is gone. Sunk costs fallacy and all that.
A mortgage isn’t a complicated shared equity situation.
You owe the bank $650k and if you don’t pay they will take the house worth $600k.
Obviously if you default there will be legal problems and you’re still on the hook for the last $50k and so on, but there’s no incentive to keep paying. Like if you declare bankruptcy then you don’t have to pay the $50k and you can start saving for a deposit on your next house for when the exclusion period expires.
Declaring bankruptcy would only be beneficial if the housing market fully crashed and it went down in price significantly and you don’t think it’ll be going back up within the next few years.
Not to mention it’ll be a lot harder to get a house in the future if you did that, and you’d get all the other downsides of bankruptcy as well.
Not to mention, this is all under a stay that assumes you’d actually be able to buy a house without a significant deposit.
Under the current system, it’d be an even bigger setback because if the house did lose a lot of value, now you’re also out a huge amount of money, still have to pay the full loan anyway, and it might take years to save up enough again to get a future house.
Basically, the banks are operating more as insurance gamblers now than they are lenders, because no matter what they win big. Even though banks should primarily work as centralized financial institutions rather than businesses, because otherwise they cause huge ramifications for the economy.
The alternative is some variety of private mortgage insurance. The insurer bets that housing prices will rise, so that you won’t default. If you do default, they reimburse the lender on their losses associated with your default.
as in the subject of this post, yes.
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.
Shit infuriates me. I want all the bankers to get William Wallace on live TV
Thanks for the hearty laugh
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.
Im responding to someone saying laws not protecting the weak from the strong is a failure, so i think we’re pretty well i!to surrealist nonsense fantasy land.
The vibe I get is that they mean it as a compliment
Interest is not intended to offset risk?
Interest provides a return on capital.
If you have $1 youre not using you might let someone else use it if they incentivise you by giving you an interest in their need.
If you give $1 to 100 different people you might increase the rate for some of them to offset your additional risk, but thats not the purpose of Interest.
Part of interest calculation is risk. That’s why higher credit score leads to lower interest, it’s less of a risk to the lender.
PMI is double dipping. They can pick one, either a flat across the board interest rate for all borrowers or PMI.
Didn’t mean to imply it was entirely about risk.
The financial illiteracy of lemmy users always amazes me.
PMI is not double dipping.
It keeps the risk reasonable so that interest rates can remain reasonable.
With no PMI there’s extra risk that would need to be priced in to interest.
No one likes PMI, but it’s not evil.
Also if you were to default they would take your house and get the insurance money
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.
Then there’s all the expenses you didn’t know about before you bought the house. If you don’t have at least some DIY skills, you get to pay people a lot of money to fix things for you.
…BTW, the county just did a reassessment on your property and your property taxes have now doubled. In exchange, you get nothing. Congratulations.
Yup. Oops, you need a new roof and a water heater, that will be $34,000.
Hey, I just did these things! Water heater i was ripped off, which cost me $2600, and the roof i actually thought was a good deal at 17k. Not fun but the roof made me happy. The water heater actually destroyed my basement by leaking out…
As long as you didn’t get a rental water heater, you did not get fucked.
I have no idea what that is, but I dont think I wanna know. I did want tankless on demand, but the service guy convinced me it’s not worth it, and I regret my decision. Said I won’t save much because the power draw is much higher than a water heater, so even though the heater is always keeping it warm, the on demand still takes more. I think I may have needed additional wiring for the electric and believe that’s really the reason he swayed me away.
Sounds like it is not common where you are, consider yourself lucky. Where I live, all new houses are built with predatory rental water heaters. $50-100/month forever. You end up paying the purchase price many times over. Electric tankless heaters use an insane amount of electricity when they operate. Overall they are more efficient, but the wiring needed to supply it will greatly increase the price, often requiring a panel upgrade and possibly an upgrade in service to the house.
Rental water heaters are some weird Canadian scam.
My ~70 year old water heater failed 5 years ago. I drove to the nearest hardware store, paid $700 for a new one, and installed it myself.
Comparing efficiency between electric and gas is complete nonsense. You need to compare operating cost. In my market, with very high electric prices, it’s $60/yr for gas tank, and $1,100/yr for electric tankless.
What happens if or when it breaks? Since it’s rented, is that at the very least not on you? I would imagine any or all work on it shouldn’t cost you anything since you’re paying monthly for it? Not that I want that, but do you get anything for this rental fee?
Yes, if it fails, they will either repair or replace it at least.
I’m guilty of ignoring my water heaters. Had my backup start to leak and it cost $1500 to replace. So I immediately bought a new anode rod for my primary tank. Drained/flushed it and replaced the old rod which was completely gone. It was an easy task but you will need a cheap impact wrench, 1 1/16" socket and chain link anode rod to make it easy.
It’s something you need to do every couple of years. But I never do it.
And so now you’ve learned that you need to regularly flush the water heater and change out the anode rod every few years, right? I just bought my first house. Hot water wasn’t working right. Heating element was dead. Why? There was so much scale that the lower element was covered in it. Replaced the element, flushed as much out as I could reasonably remove, and then flushed again six months later while replacing the anode rod. This keeps the corrosion at bay.
With new water heaters yes, do your maintenance. Old water heater that came with the place and hasn’t been touched in years? Yeah, the advice is to actually not flush it because you don’t know what cracks that gunk might be blocking up and it will be more likely to fail on you sooner.
Ooof.
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 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
In a previous life I was a mortgage loan officer at a broker. I bent over backwards helping folks get into those programs whenever possible. I was impressed with how little was needed when everything slotted in place in some cases. Glad it worked for you too!
I wouldn’t say you get nothing from paying property taxes.
That’s true but when they double over 10 years and four schools in the area shut down due to “lack of enrollment”? Streets sure aren’t any better and my neighbor who works for the city has only had COL raises for the same past decade?
c’mon… something is going on.
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!
I agree with a lot of what you said but this is complete bullshit:
while denser downtowns (guess where the poors have to rent and ultimately fund the property taxes)
I have never been able to live in a “downtown” because I’m just a construction worker. So GTFO with “these poor inner city areas are funding the suburbs.” I’m in one of the nicer houses I’ve ever managed to live in and it’s primarily a shithole. You’re telling me that the people downtown are subsidizing my white-trash ass? No way.
You’re both right which is what’s so fucked.
It depends on the city. Smaller non touristy cities. Your cheapest rents are near downtown core with all the old buildings and the only place density has been allowed to be built for the past 60 years. Bigger cities the central downtown is defintely expensive, i guess in those cities im more so refering to anywhere with apartment buildings density, which can give a downtown feel if older buildings are still preserved nearby. Although a lot of the time they’ve been paved over and thats how we get apartments that stand 20 stories high surrounded by a sea of single story strip malls and box stores.
See, it’s the opposite here. In the nearby city (pop 90k), the downtown areas are hellaciously expensive because they’re closest to amenities. The farther you get from grocery stores and bars, the cheaper it gets. It’s so weird to me that there are places where living next to shopping is cheaper than living far from shopping. It doesn’t help that the downtown apartments are being remodeled into luxe apartments and the suburbs and rural areas are where the affordable housing is being built.
The suburbs are cheaper, but you have to drive to do the shopping, and the rural areas are cheapest because everything smells like cow when it rains, and you have to drive to do the shopping.
Edit: My rural neighborhood is a combination of apartments, trailer homes, and detached housing, and it’s more than a mile from groceries.
Yeah, I’m living rural because living in the city is still more than twice as expensive. Some bad faith actors want to reclassify it as ‘suburban’ because it’s doubled in size since covid, but I’m closer to cows than the grocery store, so that falls flat.
Some places literally build cookie cutter subdivisions on a chunk of land in the middle of farms they bought so the classification may not be that far fetched depending on the circumstances. My parents house is technically zoned as agricultural yet the recent sprawl of nearby cities means there is now a mcdonalds less than 1km away and suburbs creep closer each year.
And I do think this is part of the rural angst that has taken root. The town started out as a farming town, with a vibrant community centered around agriculture, that is slowly getting replaced with boxes made of ticky-tacky. Combined with income stagnation being worse in outlying areas, there really is a sense of erasure that has no outlet.
I like that metric
Depends where you live. Where I live we just get more funded cops to more expensively harass houseless people.
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.
Rent vs mortgage - gotta put a caveat on that one.
Renting = landlord gets all the money but has to maintain the property.
Mortgage - bank gets all the money and you get a partial refund if you sell. You pay for the upkeep. A mortgage is not really an “investment”, you usually lose money on the deal if you live there. It’s cheap rent from the bank.
It basic math to see which one is better long term. Usually the mortgage wins because of of the partial return. However if you can’t do the upkeep yourself, renting is often a better financial decision.
There have been times when renting was the smarter financial decision. Like the housing bubble in 2003-2007. You could rent places for 1/2 what it would cost to buy them per month.
I think people should listen to this user.
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
Sure, but when you refi to invest, it’s not really “paying for somewhere to live” any more
Well OK. Will not help anyone paycheck to paycheck. If the person can get out of that trap, then into the market they go
The other side of that is that my mortgage, even with rising property taxes and my house appreciating wildly in value, tracks less than renting.
If I could rent a place for the price of my mortgage with the cost rising at the level my mortgage does … I’d rent all day long
Yeah, that’s the thing. The market went upside down. Maybe 1993? Before that renting made sense even from a financial perspective in many areas. But now when housing is double or treble inflation? Nope. Sink money into real property at your first opportunity.
We have fucked up the entire “developed” world so much that if you start poor you stay poor and housing is a large part of that equation.
In my lifetime interest rates on mortgages went from high teens to the 3.whatever I have.
Home values skyrocketed and now the expectation seems to be this must continue.
Honestly I’m happier to pass my house on to my kid than turn a profit on it.
Now if HE buys a house and inherits mine … I hope he turns a fat profit on it lmao
Right? My parents were ecstatic to get 11% on the home I grew up in. Now my mom’s retirement condo? three dot whatever like you said.
Then there’s all the expenses you didn’t know about before you bought the house.
The cost of owning is significantly less than renting over the life of the unit. Repairs happen, but most of the time they aren’t time critical, so you can budget out the repairs over months.
Unless the house was old when you bought it, you aren’t going out of pocket on any big purchases inside the first years of ownership.
…BTW, the county just did a reassessment on your property and your property taxes have now doubled
Idk where you live, but most states limit the rate at which an acessor can raise your housing price. In Texas, the cap is 10%. So your property taxes can rise, but the won’t double overnight.
You can also contest the increase. Harris has been fairly receptive to a simple “my neighbor’s house sold for X so my house should be worth about X, not X+20%”
The cost of owning vs renting can be very different depending on where you live and work and the amenities you want access to. Renting somewhere centrally located with good access to high quality transit and other amenities would likely be cheaper than owning. Unless we can start normalizing owning apartments again. You could own for cheaper on the outskirts of downtown, but you’ll likely be sacraficing access to some amenities by doing so.
Renting somewhere centrally located with good access to high quality transit and other amenities would likely be cheaper than owning.
I’d need to see an example. I’ve never heard of a place that was cheaper to rent than own after five years. The break point on rentals tend to be short term stays, and mostly because of the cost of real estate transactions themselves.
For public housing it can be cheaper. But that’s never going to be a centrally located high-rise.
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.
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?
There is no declining demand of human labour, and there is no indication that it will ever happen. The way the labour is performed is changing, just like it always does
Joke’s on them, I have a 15-year mortgage on my condo. (Lower interest rate than a 30-year mortgage, USA, ymmv)
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.
renting the equivalent place would probably be extremely expensive too.
Right, like I said, mortgage is not cheaper, certainly not half as cheap. The market I’m in is a metropolis, it contains every range of the market, it just depends how much gun violence you prefer.
This isn’t true in my experience at all. Either rent is cheap where you are or you’re looking at expensive houses or not for a 30 year period. The rate currently is around 6-9%. It would only be more expensive if the house is. No other hidden fees
Well in my very recent experience it is extremely, painfully, unavoidably true. That’s why I said it. We just bought a house, 150k less than we qualified for, and our monthly payment is 33% higher than we were paying in rent. Rent is far from cheap, there’s just no such thing as an inexpensive house unless you want one in a terrible neighborhood or an hour drive outside the city. In the first case, not only is it a bad idea just to live in these neighborhoods, the chances of making money on the resale are next to nil. The burbs option of course offers more for your money, but that comes with more maintenance, yardwork, housework, gas money, transit stress, etc. We worked with very knowledgeable, trustworthy realtor and mortgage brokers and there’s simply no math in the current market that gets mortgage payments lower than the rent we were paying without buying a literal, active crack house.
And to claim there’s no extra fees involved with buying and owning a home compared to renting is either utter delusion or repugnant gaslighting.
Parents and brother went in on a house together so he could live near work. Rents out the main floor for $3750 a month (3 bedroom) and that covers the mortgage so he can afford to pay the utilities and lives in the basement.
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.
They don’t actually need regular payments for 10-30 years. They need you deposit that down payment cash ASAP so they can lease it to billionaires and crypto exchanges.
Idiocy.
The bank doesn’t get the down payment. The person selling the house does.
You pay that person the down payment, and the bank pays them the rest.
Honestly there’s loads of great reasons to hate banks but lots keep it real and avoid making up nonsense.
Banks typically ask for you to have cash in hand (deposited), or equivalent leverage, to qualify for loans in the first place.
The bank I used actively tried to get me to go with less down payment, and subsequently take out a larger loan.
But yes it is the height of idiocy to say, ‘down payment deposit’ when ‘qualifying assets’ is a more accurate term for the transactions function.
They need you deposit that down payment cash ASAP so they can lease it to billionaires and crypto exchanges.
No, this is patently false and borne of a misunderstanding. Idiocy.
When providing a mortgage, how does a bank get money to lease to billionaires and crypto exchanges?
Banks do leverage mortgage debt. Essentially the same process, in turn.
But how do they lease your deposit to billionaires and crypto exchanges?
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. :)
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”.
Not necessarily young but inexperienced yes
Yeah saving the money to buy a house is terrible.
i swear my pancreas, the hospital and my bank account are conspiring against me
It took me starting my own business and throwing every dollar into savings to get a house. I advise anyone looking to get a house especially younger people to live at their parents as long as they can and save money that way too. But the standard if living keeps going up while pay stays crap too. It’s really hard. Every conspires against us. Life blows sometimes. lol
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.
I bought a 2 bedroom single family home in South Carolina last year for $86k with only $11k down, 7 minute drive from the city center of the capital city (Columbia). Mortgage is $480/mo. Cheap houses absolutely still exist if you’re willing to live in areas where “nobody wants to live”
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.
There will be shitholes in bum fuck nowhere but in this area rent will not be 1k lol
Would have been standard fare in Sweden until recently, but that’s obviously an outlier
People don’t want to twerk anymore!
At this point, yeah I would twerk on OnlyFans just to get a mortgage…
We have back problems now, Lauren.
