short sell and rent to get out of other debt or hold on and wait it out? - Page 9

[dinahx]

When people had to put 20% down, houses cost 30,000. :eyeroll:

[Seasons]

Originally Posted by dinahx

If you had ANY help from family including housing assistance while you were saving, IMO you are in no position to preach to people who aren't so lucky. A lot of people have NO family and no advantages. .... So if you used any wedding or gift money or any money that was earned in any other way than by just skimming from a paycheck, you had advantages that not everyone out there can count on.

I'm officially disadvantaged too, then, just like you. No family $ of any kind; no housing assistance; not even a second income. As a single person, pre-marriage, busy paying off school loans (because I got NO family help for those either) I scrimped and saved until I had...

33% down payment (I didn't want to take on too huge a mortgage - wait, whoops, was that a naive 1st-time homebuyer using common sense?). I was 29yo by the time I could afford to buy. I felt smart & proud (still do) rather than disadvantaged, but okay, I was disadvantaged in your vernacular.

Gee, I sure wish these generous refinancings and loan forgiveness plans programs in the works for DELINQUENTS would instead be paid to DISADVANTAGED folks like me, hahaha! Alas, the current plans will never reward those of us who deserve it, so I think those of us who do - who saved for a mortage wisely, and keep to our contracts despite hardship and inconvienence should give ourselves a big .

Originally Posted by dinahx

When people had to put 20% down, houses cost 30,000. :eyeroll:

Others have explained that 20% is required NOW and they've managed it. And my house cost 6 figures, thankyouverymuch. The norm in my pricy town, not bragging - just saying I knew what a mortage would cost and I saved enough, and delayed my buying, until I could truly afford a home - rather than just buying as soon as a bank salesperson told me I could (and for how much). Why would I listen to a salesperson over my own brain?

[dinahx]

Congratulations. Not everyone has the advantages you do, I still maintain. Some people actually have children with cancer, relatives they have to care for, lower paying jobs, etc. Saving 33% of even 100,000 means you must have had a pretty good job to be able to buy at 29. I just don't buy the argument: I did it so why can't everyone else in the world be just like ME?

I'm not in line for any of the bailout money either, I would rather have a stable mortgage than have to beg the government for help and wait on their uncertain reply. With such a huge amount of equity in your home, I can't imagine why you wouldn't feel just lucky and not resentful.

[Seasons]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Congratulations. Not everyone has the advantages you do, I still maintain. Some people actually have children with cancer, relatives they have to care for, lower paying jobs, etc.

I had low-paying, govt jobs for part of my savings phase. And I've already explained that post-contract, I had a husband leave with all our savings, while I was unemployed. In a recession. So I did yard work, cleaned businesses etc. for the YEARS it took me to get a new job. And I paid my mortgage every month through all of that.

Originally Posted by dinahx

With such a huge amount of equity in your home, I can't imagine why you wouldn't feel just lucky and not resentful.

Oh, my equity sucks thanks to market downtourns. (But I still pay my mortgage.)

I consider myself "fortunate," not "lucky." People make their own good fortunes - for instance by saving - while luck is happenstance, a windfall, like increased home equity - or decreased equity.

If I didn't pay taxes, and my home value wasn't determined in part on the foreclosure rate of nearby homes, I'd wouldn't care. But I am resentful that other homebuilders' poor choices and lack of personal responsibility is depreciating my main asset and will continue to cost ME money to bail THEM out.

[KateKat]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Congratulations. Not everyone has the advantages you do, I still maintain. Some people actually have children with cancer, relatives they have to care for, lower paying jobs, etc. Saving 33% of even 100,000 means you must have had a pretty good job to be able to buy at 29. I just don't buy the argument: I did it so why can't everyone else in the world be just like ME?

I don't have the advantages that poster has either and cannot afford to buy a home. Because I cannot afford to buy a home, I haven't. I don't want my money (through taxes) to go to people who overextended themselves. I know things like job loss and sickness happen and I am very sympathetic to people who cannot afford to pay their mortgages for these reasons. However it seems to me that the majority of people in danger of foreclosure (or in foreclosure) could not afford to buy their homes in the first place. I'm not sympathetic towards them.

[kmeyrick]

If people have to pay 20% down on a regular basis, that will bring the housing market way down I think. Depending on what area you are in. It would take too long for the average person to save that much up, even with frugality. And also, it would be dangerous to spend your life savings on a down payment and have no rainy day fund.

[KateKat]

Originally Posted by kmeyrick

If people have to pay 20% down on a regular basis, that will bring the housing market way down I think. Depending on what area you are in. It would take too long for the average person to save that much up, even with frugality. And also, it would be dangerous to spend your life savings on a down payment and have no rainy day fund.

Until very recently, most people had to pay 20% to buy a house. Those who couldn't rented. I would suspect that home ownership rates were lower then. People who didn't put much money into their homes have little to keep them from walking away from their home as the original post in this thread illustrates.

In countries (like Italy) that require larger down payments for homes, the average age of home ownership is older than that of the U.S. I don't think that is a negative thing.

[kmeyrick]

Originally Posted by KateKat

Until very recently, most people had to pay 20% to buy a house. Those who couldn't rented. I would suspect that home ownership rates were lower then. People who didn't put much money into their homes have little to keep them from walking away from their home as the original post in this thread illustrates.

In countries (like Italy) that require larger down payments for homes, the average age of home ownership is older than that of the U.S. I don't think that is a negative thing.

I dunno. Home ownership, generally, is good for a community. And good for individual and family wealth.

[Seasons]

Originally Posted by KateKat

Until very recently, most people had to pay 20% to buy a house. Those who couldn't rented. I would suspect that home ownership rates were lower then.

And similarly, equity has decreased.

"[H]omeowner equity has fallen steadily since WWII and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeown..._United_States

"International Comparison:
(Country, Homeownership rate)
Austria 56% Belgium 71% Denmark 51% France 55% Germany 42% Ireland 77% Norway 77% Spain 85% Portugal 64% UK 69% US 69% Slovenia 82% Israel 71% Canada 67% " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeown..._United_States

"Home equity is also an important related measure. For example, although "home ownership" as defined by this article is higher in the U.S. than Canada, American homeowners own less than 50% of their houses on average as of March 2008 (and falling as U.S. housing prices have fallen since that date), compared to about 70% equity ownership for Canadians homeowners." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeown..._United_States

[KateKat]

US Census Home Ownership Rates

U.S. Home Ownership Rates

2000: 66.2%
1990: 64.2%
1980: 64.4%
1970: 62.9%
1960: 61.9%
1950: 55.0%
1940: 43.6%
1930: 47.8%
1920: 45.6%
1910: 45.9%
1900: 46.5%

Home Ownership Rates for my State (NY)
2000: 53.0%
1990: 52.2%
1980: 48.6%
1970: 47.3%
1960: 44.8%
1950: 37.9%
1940: 30.3%
1930: 37.1%
1920: 30.7%
1910: 31.0%
1900: 33.2%

[Knittin' in the Shade]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Okay, so 20% of a 100k house is what, 20,000 plus 5,000 for closing costs? That is just not realistic for someone to save while paying outrageous rents. If you had ANY help from family including housing assistance while you were saving, IMO you are in no position to preach to people who aren't so lucky. A lot of people have NO family and no advantages. Plus, I KNOW DH and I are extremely lucky salary wise, compared to the rest of the country, and IMO, the most we could save was about 10 and that was over several years. So if you used any wedding or gift money or any money that was earned in any other way than by just skimming from a paycheck, you had advantages that not everyone out there can count on.

your assumptions are just mind-blowing. Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people who actually are able to save 20% down for a house without getting a gift from family?

nevermind - this conversation isn't worth getting worked up over. Peace out.

[KateKat]

Originally Posted by Knittin' in the Shade

your assumptions are just mind-blowing. Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people who actually are able to save 20% down for a house without getting a gift from family?

nevermind - this conversation isn't worth getting worked up over. Peace out.

A person with a second job that pays $7/hr. would have enough $ saved up to make a 20% down payment on a $100,000 house in 3-4 years (assuming a 15-20 hour work week).

[Azuralea]

I also recommend the TAL link posted by Kavita above.

[dinahx]

Originally Posted by KateKat

A person with a second job that pays $7/hr. would have enough $ saved up to make a 20% down payment on a $100,000 house in 3-4 years (assuming a 15-20 hour work week).

Oh okay, where do I sign up for that? 60 hour work week? For only 3-4 years? No prob! I guess anyone who doesn't have a house when they have children should just throw in the towel huh? This may be a newsflash to you, but there are people out there who physically cannot work more than 40 hours a week. The idea that y'all think that 60 hours a week is the prereq for home ownership is just disgusting. Really horrible, IMO. Someone who works 40 hours a week at a 1/2 way decent job should be able to qualify to own a home. End of story. I don't agree with y'all's world where only those capable of incredible self-sacrifce and super human feats (nevermind abandoning all hope of seeing family) deserve to join your echelon.

[nichole]

I know some people who do not spend their tax refund or stimulus checks. After a few years it adds up!

[velochic]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Oh okay, where do I sign up for that? 60 hour work week? For only 3-4 years? No prob! I guess anyone who doesn't have a house when they have children should just throw in the towel huh? This may be a newsflash to you, but there are people out there who physically cannot work more than 40 hours a week. The idea that y'all think that 60 hours a week is the prereq for home ownership is just disgusting. Really horrible, IMO. Someone who works 40 hours a week at a 1/2 way decent job should be able to qualify to own a home. End of story. I don't agree with y'all's world where only those capable of incredible self-sacrifce and super human feats (nevermind abandoning all hope of seeing family) deserve to join your echelon.

It doesn't take sacrifice, it takes discipline. Financial discipline. If you were to start saving just $200/month and investing that in laddered CDs, it would take only 7-9 years to have a sufficient down payment. That's in a normal COL area. For most people, that means they would be in their first home before they turned 30. That's exactly what I did. I come from a poor farming family, but they taught me the value of a dollar and to look to long term goals rather than instant gratification.

I also accept the fact that in some areas of the country I simply could not purchase a home. In some areas, such as SoCal and NYC, I would never buy a house because I wouldn't be able to put even 5% down. I would have to make the choice of either not living there or understanding that it's beyond my means to purchase.

[Knittin' in the Shade]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Oh okay, where do I sign up for that? 60 hour work week? For only 3-4 years? No prob! I guess anyone who doesn't have a house when they have children should just throw in the towel huh? This may be a newsflash to you, but there are people out there who physically cannot work more than 40 hours a week. The idea that y'all think that 60 hours a week is the prereq for home ownership is just disgusting. Really horrible, IMO. Someone who works 40 hours a week at a 1/2 way decent job should be able to qualify to own a home. End of story. I don't agree with y'all's world where only those capable of incredible self-sacrifce and super human feats (nevermind abandoning all hope of seeing family) deserve to join your echelon.

You're a piece of work. What world do you live in that you think everyone should just be handed a house?! This may be a newsflash to you, but owning your own home is not an inalienable right - it's a privilege, and one that does take hard work.

And, for your information, DH and I didn't buy our home until after our third was born - so we had a 4 yo, a 2 yo and a 6 mo old. So your assertion that anyone who doesn't have a home before they have kids is absurd. I think you and I have very different ideas of "incredible self-sacrifice" and "superhuman feats". Having to work more than 40 hours a week is NOT superhuman, nor an incredible sacrifice. Please.

And you're right, someone who works 40 hours a week at a halfway decent job should be able to qualify for a house - after they've proven that they can financially handle it by say, I dunno, SAVING A DOWNPAYMENT. Your sense of entitlement is what's wrong with society today. My grandparents would laugh in your face if they heard the things you've written - and they were all dirt poor immigrants who came here as children and fought tooth and nail, scrimping and saving to achieve the American Dream you think we should just hand out to everyone like lollipops.

[MissinNYC]

I am the one who doesn't get it: My friend bought a reasonable house in a recently built neighborhood for 130,000. Now those houses are selling for 100,000 at best and the neighborhood is full of forclosures. How is this her fault at all??? Should she have to continue to live in a crime ridden neighborhood or short sell, lose her credit and rent for 7 years because the builders and lenders did a wrong thing?

It's not "her fault." But when you buy a home there is some risk involved. There is the upside- you may have the house appreciate and make out well. Or you may lose money. You should understand that risk before you buy.


Had things gone the other way and your friend had had her home appreciate up to 300k, would she have taken the money? How would it be financially feasible to have a system with no risk at all? Why would anyone lend to someone if they had to pay out for appreciation but not get their money back for a loss?

[mtm]

Originally Posted by velochic

It doesn't take sacrifice, it takes discipline. Financial discipline. If you were to start saving just $200/month and investing that in laddered CDs, it would take only 7-9 years to have a sufficient down payment. That's in a normal COL area. For most people, that means they would be in their first home before they turned 30. That's exactly what I did. I come from a poor farming family, but they taught me the value of a dollar and to look to long term goals rather than instant gratification.

I also accept the fact that in some areas of the country I simply could not purchase a home. In some areas, such as SoCal and NYC, I would never buy a house because I wouldn't be able to put even 5% down. I would have to make the choice of either not living there or understanding that it's beyond my means to purchase.

I agree velochic. We're in a condo in an expensive city b/c that is what we can afford.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Someone who works 40 hours a week at a 1/2 way decent job should be able to qualify to own a home. End of story. I don't agree with y'all's world where only those capable of incredible self-sacrifce and super human feats (nevermind abandoning all hope of seeing family) deserve to join your echelon.

What are you talking about? I'll get behind the idea that someone who works 40 hours a week at a decent job should be able to afford a decent place to live. But the entitlement of the thought that everyone should be able to afford to BUY a home is astounding to me. Buying a house is not a right. Buying a car is not a right. Buying stocks is not a right. Buying a cell phone or an ipod is not a right. Having cable TV and internet access at home are not rights. These are ALL items to save up for. Society does not owe people these things.

Right now, it is very possible that we are upside down on our house. DH and I have talked about wanting to move, but we can't afford it right now. The money we used for our down payment has pretty much disappeared. So our next plan? To save money so that if we do decide to move in a couple of years, we can have a down payment. We have 4 kids and a mortgage payment that is about double what we'd pay in rent. But this is something that is important to us, so we're going to do it. I didn't plan to lose equity when I bought this house. But it happened, and even though I'm not sure I want to live here anymore, I'm a responsible adult and will live up to my end of the contract I signed when I took out my mortgage.