Rent Forever, Donât Buy A Home
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by DCAllAfrican,
- Start date
- 2,631
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
Collapse? How much lower can the housing market go? It's already cheaper to buy than it is to rent in many states. A 2500 sq ft house that's worth 150K now won't go below $125K because someone will jump on the opportunity to live in that house for $750 a month vs renting for $1200.
Only way housing market goes more than 10% lower is if rents go lower. People may not want to buy right now, but they damn sure aren't going to pay $500 more a month to rent.
- 2,631
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
Collapse? How much lower can the housing market go? It's already cheaper to buy than it is to rent in many states. A 2500 sq ft house that's worth 150K now won't go below $125K because someone will jump on the opportunity to live in that house for $750 a month vs renting for $1200.
Only way housing market goes more than 10% lower is if rents go lower. People may not want to buy right now, but they damn sure aren't going to pay $500 more a month to rent.
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
Should have bee more clear. My bad.
97% of all the loans are backed (outright originated or guaranteed) by the feds. Which, for all intents and purpose, is no different then the feds buying the ones they guarantee. It generates artificial prices all the same. At least I'd think so in that the banks would take on more risk as a result of the backstop.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/treasury-fixing-mortgage-finance-system-juggles-limitless-bailout-economy.html mentions the 97% figure.
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
Should have bee more clear. My bad.
97% of all the loans are backed (outright originated or guaranteed) by the feds. Which, for all intents and purpose, is no different then the feds buying the ones they guarantee. It generates artificial prices all the same. At least I'd think so in that the banks would take on more risk as a result of the backstop.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/treasury-fixing-mortgage-finance-system-juggles-limitless-bailout-economy.html mentions the 97% figure.
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
By many estimates, 10-15% less ( of course it depends on the are; some may have already hit bottom) to come into line with the long term trend.
They're still too high, on a national average, relative to income.
As for rents, they may be temporarily high as result of the mass amounts of foreclosures and short sales forcing people into renting.
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
By many estimates, 10-15% less ( of course it depends on the are; some may have already hit bottom) to come into line with the long term trend.
They're still too high, on a national average, relative to income.
As for rents, they may be temporarily high as result of the mass amounts of foreclosures and short sales forcing people into renting.
- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.
- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.
- 517
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
^^^ Its cause for them a mortgage is a bad investment, at least they do the research and then make a decision. Unlike the majority.
Is is that hard to understand? Maybe you should sign up for inference 101
Is is that hard to understand? Maybe you should sign up for inference 101
- 517
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
^^^ Its cause for them a mortgage is a bad investment, at least they do the research and then make a decision. Unlike the majority.
Is is that hard to understand? Maybe you should sign up for inference 101
Is is that hard to understand? Maybe you should sign up for inference 101
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
Yes, because so many millions of Americans who took on mortgages during the bubble were "experts". In order to be an "expert" (I don;'t think anyone claimed here to be) on debt, you need to take it on? I guess we have millions of debt experts among the American bubble. All about they're expert at is getting screwed six ways till Sunday.
That's akin to saying, "What do you mean you don't like gay sex. You haven't tried it yet!"
- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
Yes, because so many millions of Americans who took on mortgages during the bubble were "experts". In order to be an "expert" (I don;'t think anyone claimed here to be) on debt, you need to take it on? I guess we have millions of debt experts among the American bubble. All about they're expert at is getting screwed six ways till Sunday.
That's akin to saying, "What do you mean you don't like gay sex. You haven't tried it yet!"
- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
The same also applies for the buyers that did research, bought within their means, and made a sound home purchase.
Yes, because so many millions of Americans who took on mortgages during the bubble were "experts". In order to be an "expert" (I don;'t think anyone claimed here to be) on debt, you need to take it on? I guess we have millions of debt experts among the American bubble. All about they're expert at is getting screwed six ways till Sunday.
That's akin to saying, "What do you mean you don't like gay sex. You haven't tried it yet!"
- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
The same also applies for the buyers that did research, bought within their means, and made a sound home purchase.
Yes, because so many millions of Americans who took on mortgages during the bubble were "experts". In order to be an "expert" (I don;'t think anyone claimed here to be) on debt, you need to take it on? I guess we have millions of debt experts among the American bubble. All about they're expert at is getting screwed six ways till Sunday.
That's akin to saying, "What do you mean you don't like gay sex. You haven't tried it yet!"
- 3,170
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
Goodness that's terrible. No 'smart' investor would put %50 down on a house no matter the costs and expect to walk away with a nice profit in their late 30s, especially in a home, better yet a dubplex. Not hating, but cmon man. what if the market never recovers and you sell for a lost? I've known a lot of people in real estate (im in real estate on the side as an investor) and if they put something down like that, its for an apartment building or hotel/storage facility. but then i don't know your finances so I can't really clown you.
- 3,170
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
Goodness that's terrible. No 'smart' investor would put %50 down on a house no matter the costs and expect to walk away with a nice profit in their late 30s, especially in a home, better yet a dubplex. Not hating, but cmon man. what if the market never recovers and you sell for a lost? I've known a lot of people in real estate (im in real estate on the side as an investor) and if they put something down like that, its for an apartment building or hotel/storage facility. but then i don't know your finances so I can't really clown you.
- 3,170
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
People will always rent because it removes the fear of purchasing a home. Especially if the market recovers.
Americans don't like fear or responsibility to people will rent.
Also, if you're doing a construction loan, be prepared to work as a contractor in most cases and have some knowledge in working with the subdivison and county people because they'll want to know every single blueprint etc. unless you go to bob-the builder who will charge you 30k just to do that work for you.
Americans don't like fear or responsibility to people will rent.
Also, if you're doing a construction loan, be prepared to work as a contractor in most cases and have some knowledge in working with the subdivison and county people because they'll want to know every single blueprint etc. unless you go to bob-the builder who will charge you 30k just to do that work for you.
- 3,170
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
People will always rent because it removes the fear of purchasing a home. Especially if the market recovers.
Americans don't like fear or responsibility to people will rent.
Also, if you're doing a construction loan, be prepared to work as a contractor in most cases and have some knowledge in working with the subdivison and county people because they'll want to know every single blueprint etc. unless you go to bob-the builder who will charge you 30k just to do that work for you.
Americans don't like fear or responsibility to people will rent.
Also, if you're doing a construction loan, be prepared to work as a contractor in most cases and have some knowledge in working with the subdivison and county people because they'll want to know every single blueprint etc. unless you go to bob-the builder who will charge you 30k just to do that work for you.
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
Originally Posted by trak1sh
his thread is very informative. I always thought that owning was the best choice and I will eventually own, but this makes me feel better about paying rent.
D-
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
Originally Posted by trak1sh
his thread is very informative. I always thought that owning was the best choice and I will eventually own, but this makes me feel better about paying rent.
D-
- 196
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
Just wanted to chime in here.....isnt it ironic that MORTGAGE in French means Death Pledge? So in many cases u will be pretty old or dead by the time it gets paid off....Like many others have said, it depends on your situation and what is best for YOU...Didnt read the entire thread but there were some comparisons between the potential gains in stocks/other investments vs real estate..Not sure about the States but here in Canada you DO NOT have to pay a Capital Gains Tax when u sell your principle residence for profit, however u have to claim most investment gains yearly as income. If u sell said investments for profit u get hit with a pretty hefty tax....
Also, when u own a house u own the structure itself and not the land....i have heard of many cases where the Banks have failed to remit property taxes to the municipalities that people pay as part of their mortgage and ended up having liens placed on their properties....Its a shame what has happened in the USA with many peoples equity being wiped out and having to walk away from their houses in some instances, but herein lies tremendous opportunities for savvy investors and the low US dollar is also bonus for foreigners...
I rented initially to become responsible with managing my finances and lifestyle. Buying allowed me to build tremendous equity in a short amount of time. I was able to put over $100,000 in my pocket in 10 months Tax Free, pay off my debts, buy a vacation property, and put a down payment on a new house that will be worth More when it closes then what i bought it for. Eventually i want to live abroad because North America is becoming too expensive to live...At the end of the day do what is best for you but it is very difficult to be truly financially independant.
Also, when u own a house u own the structure itself and not the land....i have heard of many cases where the Banks have failed to remit property taxes to the municipalities that people pay as part of their mortgage and ended up having liens placed on their properties....Its a shame what has happened in the USA with many peoples equity being wiped out and having to walk away from their houses in some instances, but herein lies tremendous opportunities for savvy investors and the low US dollar is also bonus for foreigners...
I rented initially to become responsible with managing my finances and lifestyle. Buying allowed me to build tremendous equity in a short amount of time. I was able to put over $100,000 in my pocket in 10 months Tax Free, pay off my debts, buy a vacation property, and put a down payment on a new house that will be worth More when it closes then what i bought it for. Eventually i want to live abroad because North America is becoming too expensive to live...At the end of the day do what is best for you but it is very difficult to be truly financially independant.
- 196
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
Just wanted to chime in here.....isnt it ironic that MORTGAGE in French means Death Pledge? So in many cases u will be pretty old or dead by the time it gets paid off....Like many others have said, it depends on your situation and what is best for YOU...Didnt read the entire thread but there were some comparisons between the potential gains in stocks/other investments vs real estate..Not sure about the States but here in Canada you DO NOT have to pay a Capital Gains Tax when u sell your principle residence for profit, however u have to claim most investment gains yearly as income. If u sell said investments for profit u get hit with a pretty hefty tax....
Also, when u own a house u own the structure itself and not the land....i have heard of many cases where the Banks have failed to remit property taxes to the municipalities that people pay as part of their mortgage and ended up having liens placed on their properties....Its a shame what has happened in the USA with many peoples equity being wiped out and having to walk away from their houses in some instances, but herein lies tremendous opportunities for savvy investors and the low US dollar is also bonus for foreigners...
I rented initially to become responsible with managing my finances and lifestyle. Buying allowed me to build tremendous equity in a short amount of time. I was able to put over $100,000 in my pocket in 10 months Tax Free, pay off my debts, buy a vacation property, and put a down payment on a new house that will be worth More when it closes then what i bought it for. Eventually i want to live abroad because North America is becoming too expensive to live...At the end of the day do what is best for you but it is very difficult to be truly financially independant.
Also, when u own a house u own the structure itself and not the land....i have heard of many cases where the Banks have failed to remit property taxes to the municipalities that people pay as part of their mortgage and ended up having liens placed on their properties....Its a shame what has happened in the USA with many peoples equity being wiped out and having to walk away from their houses in some instances, but herein lies tremendous opportunities for savvy investors and the low US dollar is also bonus for foreigners...
I rented initially to become responsible with managing my finances and lifestyle. Buying allowed me to build tremendous equity in a short amount of time. I was able to put over $100,000 in my pocket in 10 months Tax Free, pay off my debts, buy a vacation property, and put a down payment on a new house that will be worth More when it closes then what i bought it for. Eventually i want to live abroad because North America is becoming too expensive to live...At the end of the day do what is best for you but it is very difficult to be truly financially independant.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Glad you brought that up. Didn't wanna come in sounding like the conspiracy theory or turn this into a religious thread but you are totally right my man. People really should read up on the law of mortmain (death hand) and mortgages to see what's really going on with property ownership in this country and the origin of the stuff.
[h1]Mortmain[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[table][tr][td]
Mortmain is a legal term that means ownership of real estate by a corporation or legal institution that can be transferred or sold in perpetuity; the term is usually used in the context of its prohibition. Historically, the land owner usually would be the religious office of a church; today, insofar as mortmain prohibitions against perpetual ownership still exist, it refers most often to modern companies and charitable trusts. The term "mortmain" is derived from medieval French (mort main), literally meaning "dead hand."
[table][tr][td]
[h2]Contents[/h2] [hide]
[/td][/tr][/table][h2][edit]History[/h2]
During the Middle Ages in countries such as England the church acquired a substantial amount of real estate. As the church and religious orders were recognised as a legal person separate from the office holder who administered the church land (such as the abbot or the bishop), the land would not go to the king on the death of the holder, as the church and the religious orders would not die. In addition, as the land was held in perpetuity, it would never escheat or pass by inheritance (and no feudal incidents or taxes would be payable upon it).
This was in contrast to feudal practice where the nobility would hold land on grant from the king in return for service, especially service in war. This meant that the church over time gained a large share of land in many feudal states and so was a cause of increasing tension between the church and the Crown.[sup][1][/sup]
In 1279 and again 1290 Statutes of Mortmain were passed by King Edward I to circumscribe the church's holding of property, although limits on the church's power to hold land are also found in earlier statutes, including the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Provisions of Westminster of 1259.[sup][2][/sup] The broad effect of these provisions was that the authorisation of the Crown was needed before the land could vest perpetually in a corporation.
Although statutes prohibiting mortmain have been abolished in most countries today, the principle still subsists to a certain extent in relation to trust law in the form of the rule against perpetuities.
Mortmain played an important part in legal history, and earlier case law often needs to be considered against this background. For example, the judicial decision in Thornton v Howe[sup][3][/sup] held that a trust for publishing the writings of Joanna Southcott[sup][4][/sup] was charitable being for the "advancement of religion." This decision is often held up as setting the bar extremely low in determining whether a charity is for the advancement of religion.[sup][5][/sup] But if one considers that at the time the statutes against mortmain were in force, and that the effect of the decision was that the trust was void, rather than imbuing it with special privileges in relation to taxation, it puts a very different spin on the ratio decidendi.
[h2][edit]Origin of the term 'Mortmain'[/h2]
The origin of the term remains obscure, and therefore has long been the subject of speculation. William Blackstone wrote, in 1765, "The reason of [this] appellation Sir Edward Coke offers many conjectures; but there is one which seems more probable than any that he has given us: viz. that these purchases being usually made by ecclesiastical bodies, the members of which (being professed) were reckoned dead persons in law, land therefore, holden by them, might with great propriety be said to be held in mortua manu. [in dead hands]."[sup][6][/sup]
[h2][edit][/h2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Glad you brought that up. Didn't wanna come in sounding like the conspiracy theory or turn this into a religious thread but you are totally right my man. People really should read up on the law of mortmain (death hand) and mortgages to see what's really going on with property ownership in this country and the origin of the stuff.
[h1]Mortmain[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[table][tr][td]
Mortmain is a legal term that means ownership of real estate by a corporation or legal institution that can be transferred or sold in perpetuity; the term is usually used in the context of its prohibition. Historically, the land owner usually would be the religious office of a church; today, insofar as mortmain prohibitions against perpetual ownership still exist, it refers most often to modern companies and charitable trusts. The term "mortmain" is derived from medieval French (mort main), literally meaning "dead hand."
[table][tr][td]
[h2]Contents[/h2] [hide]
[/td][/tr][/table][h2][edit]History[/h2]
During the Middle Ages in countries such as England the church acquired a substantial amount of real estate. As the church and religious orders were recognised as a legal person separate from the office holder who administered the church land (such as the abbot or the bishop), the land would not go to the king on the death of the holder, as the church and the religious orders would not die. In addition, as the land was held in perpetuity, it would never escheat or pass by inheritance (and no feudal incidents or taxes would be payable upon it).
This was in contrast to feudal practice where the nobility would hold land on grant from the king in return for service, especially service in war. This meant that the church over time gained a large share of land in many feudal states and so was a cause of increasing tension between the church and the Crown.[sup][1][/sup]
In 1279 and again 1290 Statutes of Mortmain were passed by King Edward I to circumscribe the church's holding of property, although limits on the church's power to hold land are also found in earlier statutes, including the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Provisions of Westminster of 1259.[sup][2][/sup] The broad effect of these provisions was that the authorisation of the Crown was needed before the land could vest perpetually in a corporation.
Although statutes prohibiting mortmain have been abolished in most countries today, the principle still subsists to a certain extent in relation to trust law in the form of the rule against perpetuities.
Mortmain played an important part in legal history, and earlier case law often needs to be considered against this background. For example, the judicial decision in Thornton v Howe[sup][3][/sup] held that a trust for publishing the writings of Joanna Southcott[sup][4][/sup] was charitable being for the "advancement of religion." This decision is often held up as setting the bar extremely low in determining whether a charity is for the advancement of religion.[sup][5][/sup] But if one considers that at the time the statutes against mortmain were in force, and that the effect of the decision was that the trust was void, rather than imbuing it with special privileges in relation to taxation, it puts a very different spin on the ratio decidendi.
[h2][edit]Origin of the term 'Mortmain'[/h2]
The origin of the term remains obscure, and therefore has long been the subject of speculation. William Blackstone wrote, in 1765, "The reason of [this] appellation Sir Edward Coke offers many conjectures; but there is one which seems more probable than any that he has given us: viz. that these purchases being usually made by ecclesiastical bodies, the members of which (being professed) were reckoned dead persons in law, land therefore, holden by them, might with great propriety be said to be held in mortua manu. [in dead hands]."[sup][6][/sup]
[h2][edit][/h2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
