Giving in

[jpinpb]

[quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.[/quote]
How can you live for free and be a mortgage slaves at the same time? Also, there’s nothing wrong with renting. Many of these people probably shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. So, there’s no change for them.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.[/quote]
How can you live for free and be a mortgage slaves at the same time? Also, there’s nothing wrong with renting. Many of these people probably shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. So, there’s no change for them.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.[/quote]
How can you live for free and be a mortgage slaves at the same time? Also, there’s nothing wrong with renting. Many of these people probably shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. So, there’s no change for them.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.[/quote]
How can you live for free and be a mortgage slaves at the same time? Also, there’s nothing wrong with renting. Many of these people probably shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. So, there’s no change for them.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]People who refinanced themselves into debt are actually loving this “American Dream”. How else can they would have bought all of those stuff?[/quote]
And many are living for free. But eventually will be back to renting b/c of their indulgence and/or become mortgage slaves.[/quote]
How can you live for free and be a mortgage slaves at the same time? Also, there’s nothing wrong with renting. Many of these people probably shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. So, there’s no change for them.

[bluehairdave]

[quote=deadzone][quote=bluehairdave][quote=deadzone]Bluehair, are you a realtor in disguise? They way you talk about homeownership as the magic potion to propserity and happiness you must be.

Also, I call total bullshit that you bought a house in 2007 and that it is worth more now. In what country exactly did you buy this house? Definitely not in California. You’ll have to provide more details.[/quote]

I didnt say its worth more. Its worth the same and id take a loss after realtor fees but im renting it once I move. Im not saying its a magic potion but it can be an important part of security later on in life.

And the house is on tecelote canyon and i bought if from a divorcing couple who had to sell so I got it under market when I bought it. I bought for 100k less than my neighbor did.[/quote]

Agreed on the security thing, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But unfortunately there are many folks who are deeply underwater on their houses and in many cases are paying mortgages up to 2x what it would take to rent the equivalent place next door. But they have too much stubborn pride to do the financially responsible thing which would be to walk away. I don’t think the home owndership dream is working out for them. They are basically slaves to their mortgage and have no hope of recovering.

So do you believe you can rent your place (you bought in 2007) and be cash flow positive? I cant see how you could unless you really got the steal of the century.[/quote]

Oh hell no!. Ill lost 1k a month after taxes etc. but while I dont qualify to deduct the loss I will still be able to write off the interest payments. But I am not going to stop moving forward with my life plan because of losing a little bit of money each month. I might just sell it and loose the 15k I am sure to loose. Average sit time in my neighborhood is about 60 days so they are moving and I know about what price I will get. I figured Id bleed 1k a month take the deductions and see whats up in a year. Might rent to my two buddies who fix up houses and have them pimp out the pad while they are here for cheaper rent.

Its sure not foolproof but I need a bigger pad and better school system. SD Unified is a joke.

[bluehairdave]

[quote=deadzone][quote=bluehairdave][quote=deadzone]Bluehair, are you a realtor in disguise? They way you talk about homeownership as the magic potion to propserity and happiness you must be.

Also, I call total bullshit that you bought a house in 2007 and that it is worth more now. In what country exactly did you buy this house? Definitely not in California. You’ll have to provide more details.[/quote]

I didnt say its worth more. Its worth the same and id take a loss after realtor fees but im renting it once I move. Im not saying its a magic potion but it can be an important part of security later on in life.

And the house is on tecelote canyon and i bought if from a divorcing couple who had to sell so I got it under market when I bought it. I bought for 100k less than my neighbor did.[/quote]

Agreed on the security thing, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But unfortunately there are many folks who are deeply underwater on their houses and in many cases are paying mortgages up to 2x what it would take to rent the equivalent place next door. But they have too much stubborn pride to do the financially responsible thing which would be to walk away. I don’t think the home owndership dream is working out for them. They are basically slaves to their mortgage and have no hope of recovering.

So do you believe you can rent your place (you bought in 2007) and be cash flow positive? I cant see how you could unless you really got the steal of the century.[/quote]

Oh hell no!. Ill lost 1k a month after taxes etc. but while I dont qualify to deduct the loss I will still be able to write off the interest payments. But I am not going to stop moving forward with my life plan because of losing a little bit of money each month. I might just sell it and loose the 15k I am sure to loose. Average sit time in my neighborhood is about 60 days so they are moving and I know about what price I will get. I figured Id bleed 1k a month take the deductions and see whats up in a year. Might rent to my two buddies who fix up houses and have them pimp out the pad while they are here for cheaper rent.

Its sure not foolproof but I need a bigger pad and better school system. SD Unified is a joke.

[bluehairdave]

[quote=deadzone][quote=bluehairdave][quote=deadzone]Bluehair, are you a realtor in disguise? They way you talk about homeownership as the magic potion to propserity and happiness you must be.

Also, I call total bullshit that you bought a house in 2007 and that it is worth more now. In what country exactly did you buy this house? Definitely not in California. You’ll have to provide more details.[/quote]

I didnt say its worth more. Its worth the same and id take a loss after realtor fees but im renting it once I move. Im not saying its a magic potion but it can be an important part of security later on in life.

And the house is on tecelote canyon and i bought if from a divorcing couple who had to sell so I got it under market when I bought it. I bought for 100k less than my neighbor did.[/quote]

Agreed on the security thing, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But unfortunately there are many folks who are deeply underwater on their houses and in many cases are paying mortgages up to 2x what it would take to rent the equivalent place next door. But they have too much stubborn pride to do the financially responsible thing which would be to walk away. I don’t think the home owndership dream is working out for them. They are basically slaves to their mortgage and have no hope of recovering.

So do you believe you can rent your place (you bought in 2007) and be cash flow positive? I cant see how you could unless you really got the steal of the century.[/quote]

Oh hell no!. Ill lost 1k a month after taxes etc. but while I dont qualify to deduct the loss I will still be able to write off the interest payments. But I am not going to stop moving forward with my life plan because of losing a little bit of money each month. I might just sell it and loose the 15k I am sure to loose. Average sit time in my neighborhood is about 60 days so they are moving and I know about what price I will get. I figured Id bleed 1k a month take the deductions and see whats up in a year. Might rent to my two buddies who fix up houses and have them pimp out the pad while they are here for cheaper rent.

Its sure not foolproof but I need a bigger pad and better school system. SD Unified is a joke.

[bluehairdave]

[quote=deadzone][quote=bluehairdave][quote=deadzone]Bluehair, are you a realtor in disguise? They way you talk about homeownership as the magic potion to propserity and happiness you must be.

Also, I call total bullshit that you bought a house in 2007 and that it is worth more now. In what country exactly did you buy this house? Definitely not in California. You’ll have to provide more details.[/quote]

I didnt say its worth more. Its worth the same and id take a loss after realtor fees but im renting it once I move. Im not saying its a magic potion but it can be an important part of security later on in life.

And the house is on tecelote canyon and i bought if from a divorcing couple who had to sell so I got it under market when I bought it. I bought for 100k less than my neighbor did.[/quote]

Agreed on the security thing, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But unfortunately there are many folks who are deeply underwater on their houses and in many cases are paying mortgages up to 2x what it would take to rent the equivalent place next door. But they have too much stubborn pride to do the financially responsible thing which would be to walk away. I don’t think the home owndership dream is working out for them. They are basically slaves to their mortgage and have no hope of recovering.

So do you believe you can rent your place (you bought in 2007) and be cash flow positive? I cant see how you could unless you really got the steal of the century.[/quote]

Oh hell no!. Ill lost 1k a month after taxes etc. but while I dont qualify to deduct the loss I will still be able to write off the interest payments. But I am not going to stop moving forward with my life plan because of losing a little bit of money each month. I might just sell it and loose the 15k I am sure to loose. Average sit time in my neighborhood is about 60 days so they are moving and I know about what price I will get. I figured Id bleed 1k a month take the deductions and see whats up in a year. Might rent to my two buddies who fix up houses and have them pimp out the pad while they are here for cheaper rent.

Its sure not foolproof but I need a bigger pad and better school system. SD Unified is a joke.

[bluehairdave]

[quote=deadzone][quote=bluehairdave][quote=deadzone]Bluehair, are you a realtor in disguise? They way you talk about homeownership as the magic potion to propserity and happiness you must be.

Also, I call total bullshit that you bought a house in 2007 and that it is worth more now. In what country exactly did you buy this house? Definitely not in California. You’ll have to provide more details.[/quote]

I didnt say its worth more. Its worth the same and id take a loss after realtor fees but im renting it once I move. Im not saying its a magic potion but it can be an important part of security later on in life.

And the house is on tecelote canyon and i bought if from a divorcing couple who had to sell so I got it under market when I bought it. I bought for 100k less than my neighbor did.[/quote]

Agreed on the security thing, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But unfortunately there are many folks who are deeply underwater on their houses and in many cases are paying mortgages up to 2x what it would take to rent the equivalent place next door. But they have too much stubborn pride to do the financially responsible thing which would be to walk away. I don’t think the home owndership dream is working out for them. They are basically slaves to their mortgage and have no hope of recovering.

So do you believe you can rent your place (you bought in 2007) and be cash flow positive? I cant see how you could unless you really got the steal of the century.[/quote]

Oh hell no!. Ill lost 1k a month after taxes etc. but while I dont qualify to deduct the loss I will still be able to write off the interest payments. But I am not going to stop moving forward with my life plan because of losing a little bit of money each month. I might just sell it and loose the 15k I am sure to loose. Average sit time in my neighborhood is about 60 days so they are moving and I know about what price I will get. I figured Id bleed 1k a month take the deductions and see whats up in a year. Might rent to my two buddies who fix up houses and have them pimp out the pad while they are here for cheaper rent.

Its sure not foolproof but I need a bigger pad and better school system. SD Unified is a joke.

[briansd1]

Actually, only a minority of those underwater will walk away. The guys who stay will become mortage slaves.

I heard Matt Battiata say on KPBS that close to 50% of San Diego houses with mortgages are underwater. Not sure where he gets his data. What he said here is not clear but his kbps sponsorhsip message says 50%

BATTIATA: I think the biggest issue, Maureen is that almost half the homes in San Diego county are incumbered by mortgages, most peoples are upside down. And when I’ve got about half the market that if for any reason they need to sell, whether it’s any of the reasons, job, divorce, transfer, etc, they’re all distressed sales. They’re all best cases, short sale, and worst case a foreclosure. That’s the issue that we’ve got in San Diego county. And that’s why we’re — we still haven’t bottomed out and started to recover.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jul/05/local-real-estate-rebound-or-facing-double-dip/

Whatever the percentage is (31% in CA), it’s quite high. Add to those the homeowners who are not yet upside-down, but who have lost equity since purchase and those who don’t have enough equity to sell without bring money to escrow.

I’m not seeing widespread financial security in homownership, unless one bought before the bubble and was able to ride the market up.

[briansd1]

Actually, only a minority of those underwater will walk away. The guys who stay will become mortage slaves.

I heard Matt Battiata say on KPBS that close to 50% of San Diego houses with mortgages are underwater. Not sure where he gets his data. What he said here is not clear but his kbps sponsorhsip message says 50%

BATTIATA: I think the biggest issue, Maureen is that almost half the homes in San Diego county are incumbered by mortgages, most peoples are upside down. And when I’ve got about half the market that if for any reason they need to sell, whether it’s any of the reasons, job, divorce, transfer, etc, they’re all distressed sales. They’re all best cases, short sale, and worst case a foreclosure. That’s the issue that we’ve got in San Diego county. And that’s why we’re — we still haven’t bottomed out and started to recover.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jul/05/local-real-estate-rebound-or-facing-double-dip/

Whatever the percentage is (31% in CA), it’s quite high. Add to those the homeowners who are not yet upside-down, but who have lost equity since purchase and those who don’t have enough equity to sell without bring money to escrow.

I’m not seeing widespread financial security in homownership, unless one bought before the bubble and was able to ride the market up.

[briansd1]

Actually, only a minority of those underwater will walk away. The guys who stay will become mortage slaves.

I heard Matt Battiata say on KPBS that close to 50% of San Diego houses with mortgages are underwater. Not sure where he gets his data. What he said here is not clear but his kbps sponsorhsip message says 50%

BATTIATA: I think the biggest issue, Maureen is that almost half the homes in San Diego county are incumbered by mortgages, most peoples are upside down. And when I’ve got about half the market that if for any reason they need to sell, whether it’s any of the reasons, job, divorce, transfer, etc, they’re all distressed sales. They’re all best cases, short sale, and worst case a foreclosure. That’s the issue that we’ve got in San Diego county. And that’s why we’re — we still haven’t bottomed out and started to recover.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jul/05/local-real-estate-rebound-or-facing-double-dip/

Whatever the percentage is (31% in CA), it’s quite high. Add to those the homeowners who are not yet upside-down, but who have lost equity since purchase and those who don’t have enough equity to sell without bring money to escrow.

I’m not seeing widespread financial security in homownership, unless one bought before the bubble and was able to ride the market up.

[briansd1]

Actually, only a minority of those underwater will walk away. The guys who stay will become mortage slaves.

I heard Matt Battiata say on KPBS that close to 50% of San Diego houses with mortgages are underwater. Not sure where he gets his data. What he said here is not clear but his kbps sponsorhsip message says 50%

BATTIATA: I think the biggest issue, Maureen is that almost half the homes in San Diego county are incumbered by mortgages, most peoples are upside down. And when I’ve got about half the market that if for any reason they need to sell, whether it’s any of the reasons, job, divorce, transfer, etc, they’re all distressed sales. They’re all best cases, short sale, and worst case a foreclosure. That’s the issue that we’ve got in San Diego county. And that’s why we’re — we still haven’t bottomed out and started to recover.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jul/05/local-real-estate-rebound-or-facing-double-dip/

Whatever the percentage is (31% in CA), it’s quite high. Add to those the homeowners who are not yet upside-down, but who have lost equity since purchase and those who don’t have enough equity to sell without bring money to escrow.

I’m not seeing widespread financial security in homownership, unless one bought before the bubble and was able to ride the market up.

[Author]

Posts