- This topic has 255 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 22, 2010 at 5:37 PM #633970November 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM #632874
CA renter
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]That and watching 2 small kids settle into their new digs and start making memories of a lifetime. After all, that is what it is all about.[/quote]
That is so Suzanne-researched-it.
Do you need to buy a house to start making memories? Everything before is blank?
[/quote]We discussed this already. sdr had the perfect life b/c his family owned a home
My parents rented half my childhood and we moved a few times, even to Italy. I have great lifetime memories. You don’t have to own a house for a kid to have good memories. That’s laying it on a little thick. If anything, my personal opinion, living in one home most of one’s life limits exposure to many of life’s experiences. Traveling is nice, but living in cities gives you a different insight. Can’t begin to explain how it forms children and helps them be aware of different cultures, etc.[/quote]
Totally agree with this.
People also have to realize that in our “new and improved” globalized world, even if you “own” a home, chances are you’ll have to move since we don’t have stable, secure jobs anymore.
My parents owned my entire life, by we still moved every two years for the first half of my childhood. Mom was into real estate and kept wanting to “move up” and we also lived overseas (in a rental!) and rented out our “owned” house in the U.S.
OTOH, I know a family from my childhood who have been living in the same *rental* house for as long as I can remember — they still do, ~30+ years later.
Whether one rents money (mortgage) or rents a house, it doesn’t really make a difference. What matters most to kids is a stable, happy home and family; whether one rents or owns doesn’t make the family or living situation stable, especially in this economy. As a matter of fact, of the people I know who either bought or began renting since this bubble began, the most stable ones are the renters.
November 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM #632952Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]That and watching 2 small kids settle into their new digs and start making memories of a lifetime. After all, that is what it is all about.[/quote]
That is so Suzanne-researched-it.
Do you need to buy a house to start making memories? Everything before is blank?
[/quote]We discussed this already. sdr had the perfect life b/c his family owned a home
My parents rented half my childhood and we moved a few times, even to Italy. I have great lifetime memories. You don’t have to own a house for a kid to have good memories. That’s laying it on a little thick. If anything, my personal opinion, living in one home most of one’s life limits exposure to many of life’s experiences. Traveling is nice, but living in cities gives you a different insight. Can’t begin to explain how it forms children and helps them be aware of different cultures, etc.[/quote]
Totally agree with this.
People also have to realize that in our “new and improved” globalized world, even if you “own” a home, chances are you’ll have to move since we don’t have stable, secure jobs anymore.
My parents owned my entire life, by we still moved every two years for the first half of my childhood. Mom was into real estate and kept wanting to “move up” and we also lived overseas (in a rental!) and rented out our “owned” house in the U.S.
OTOH, I know a family from my childhood who have been living in the same *rental* house for as long as I can remember — they still do, ~30+ years later.
Whether one rents money (mortgage) or rents a house, it doesn’t really make a difference. What matters most to kids is a stable, happy home and family; whether one rents or owns doesn’t make the family or living situation stable, especially in this economy. As a matter of fact, of the people I know who either bought or began renting since this bubble began, the most stable ones are the renters.
November 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM #633525Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]That and watching 2 small kids settle into their new digs and start making memories of a lifetime. After all, that is what it is all about.[/quote]
That is so Suzanne-researched-it.
Do you need to buy a house to start making memories? Everything before is blank?
[/quote]We discussed this already. sdr had the perfect life b/c his family owned a home
My parents rented half my childhood and we moved a few times, even to Italy. I have great lifetime memories. You don’t have to own a house for a kid to have good memories. That’s laying it on a little thick. If anything, my personal opinion, living in one home most of one’s life limits exposure to many of life’s experiences. Traveling is nice, but living in cities gives you a different insight. Can’t begin to explain how it forms children and helps them be aware of different cultures, etc.[/quote]
Totally agree with this.
People also have to realize that in our “new and improved” globalized world, even if you “own” a home, chances are you’ll have to move since we don’t have stable, secure jobs anymore.
My parents owned my entire life, by we still moved every two years for the first half of my childhood. Mom was into real estate and kept wanting to “move up” and we also lived overseas (in a rental!) and rented out our “owned” house in the U.S.
OTOH, I know a family from my childhood who have been living in the same *rental* house for as long as I can remember — they still do, ~30+ years later.
Whether one rents money (mortgage) or rents a house, it doesn’t really make a difference. What matters most to kids is a stable, happy home and family; whether one rents or owns doesn’t make the family or living situation stable, especially in this economy. As a matter of fact, of the people I know who either bought or began renting since this bubble began, the most stable ones are the renters.
November 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM #633653Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]That and watching 2 small kids settle into their new digs and start making memories of a lifetime. After all, that is what it is all about.[/quote]
That is so Suzanne-researched-it.
Do you need to buy a house to start making memories? Everything before is blank?
[/quote]We discussed this already. sdr had the perfect life b/c his family owned a home
My parents rented half my childhood and we moved a few times, even to Italy. I have great lifetime memories. You don’t have to own a house for a kid to have good memories. That’s laying it on a little thick. If anything, my personal opinion, living in one home most of one’s life limits exposure to many of life’s experiences. Traveling is nice, but living in cities gives you a different insight. Can’t begin to explain how it forms children and helps them be aware of different cultures, etc.[/quote]
Totally agree with this.
People also have to realize that in our “new and improved” globalized world, even if you “own” a home, chances are you’ll have to move since we don’t have stable, secure jobs anymore.
My parents owned my entire life, by we still moved every two years for the first half of my childhood. Mom was into real estate and kept wanting to “move up” and we also lived overseas (in a rental!) and rented out our “owned” house in the U.S.
OTOH, I know a family from my childhood who have been living in the same *rental* house for as long as I can remember — they still do, ~30+ years later.
Whether one rents money (mortgage) or rents a house, it doesn’t really make a difference. What matters most to kids is a stable, happy home and family; whether one rents or owns doesn’t make the family or living situation stable, especially in this economy. As a matter of fact, of the people I know who either bought or began renting since this bubble began, the most stable ones are the renters.
November 22, 2010 at 5:39 PM #633975Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=briansd1][quote=sdrealtor]That and watching 2 small kids settle into their new digs and start making memories of a lifetime. After all, that is what it is all about.[/quote]
That is so Suzanne-researched-it.
Do you need to buy a house to start making memories? Everything before is blank?
[/quote]We discussed this already. sdr had the perfect life b/c his family owned a home
My parents rented half my childhood and we moved a few times, even to Italy. I have great lifetime memories. You don’t have to own a house for a kid to have good memories. That’s laying it on a little thick. If anything, my personal opinion, living in one home most of one’s life limits exposure to many of life’s experiences. Traveling is nice, but living in cities gives you a different insight. Can’t begin to explain how it forms children and helps them be aware of different cultures, etc.[/quote]
Totally agree with this.
People also have to realize that in our “new and improved” globalized world, even if you “own” a home, chances are you’ll have to move since we don’t have stable, secure jobs anymore.
My parents owned my entire life, by we still moved every two years for the first half of my childhood. Mom was into real estate and kept wanting to “move up” and we also lived overseas (in a rental!) and rented out our “owned” house in the U.S.
OTOH, I know a family from my childhood who have been living in the same *rental* house for as long as I can remember — they still do, ~30+ years later.
Whether one rents money (mortgage) or rents a house, it doesn’t really make a difference. What matters most to kids is a stable, happy home and family; whether one rents or owns doesn’t make the family or living situation stable, especially in this economy. As a matter of fact, of the people I know who either bought or began renting since this bubble began, the most stable ones are the renters.
November 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM #632879Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=walterwhite]i think you can be socially liberal and still think unmarried people shouldn’t live together. It’s just not a good idea.[/quote]
scaredy, I consider myself a “social independent” and can agree that an unmarried heterosexual couple should NOT buy a house together for a WHOLE LOT of reasons, mostly being that I’ve just seen a lot of STUFF in my day. And yes, I’ve had buyer-clients in this category.
I have NO problems with unmarried couples living together.
This is just a bad idea, overall, to buy a house with a partner you are not married to. The decision to do this is fraught with minefields.
You gotta ask yourself, if a couple wants to do this, why don’t they just get married first??
What is the REASON keeping them from marrying???[/quote]
Agree 100%.
It’s not the “living together” that’s a problem, it’s the unwillingness to commit to marriage that’s the issue; buying a house (or having kids…don’t even get me started) is often a much bigger commitment, financially, but for some reason people jump into these decisions while being afraid of getting married.
This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.
November 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM #632957Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=walterwhite]i think you can be socially liberal and still think unmarried people shouldn’t live together. It’s just not a good idea.[/quote]
scaredy, I consider myself a “social independent” and can agree that an unmarried heterosexual couple should NOT buy a house together for a WHOLE LOT of reasons, mostly being that I’ve just seen a lot of STUFF in my day. And yes, I’ve had buyer-clients in this category.
I have NO problems with unmarried couples living together.
This is just a bad idea, overall, to buy a house with a partner you are not married to. The decision to do this is fraught with minefields.
You gotta ask yourself, if a couple wants to do this, why don’t they just get married first??
What is the REASON keeping them from marrying???[/quote]
Agree 100%.
It’s not the “living together” that’s a problem, it’s the unwillingness to commit to marriage that’s the issue; buying a house (or having kids…don’t even get me started) is often a much bigger commitment, financially, but for some reason people jump into these decisions while being afraid of getting married.
This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.
November 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM #633530Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=walterwhite]i think you can be socially liberal and still think unmarried people shouldn’t live together. It’s just not a good idea.[/quote]
scaredy, I consider myself a “social independent” and can agree that an unmarried heterosexual couple should NOT buy a house together for a WHOLE LOT of reasons, mostly being that I’ve just seen a lot of STUFF in my day. And yes, I’ve had buyer-clients in this category.
I have NO problems with unmarried couples living together.
This is just a bad idea, overall, to buy a house with a partner you are not married to. The decision to do this is fraught with minefields.
You gotta ask yourself, if a couple wants to do this, why don’t they just get married first??
What is the REASON keeping them from marrying???[/quote]
Agree 100%.
It’s not the “living together” that’s a problem, it’s the unwillingness to commit to marriage that’s the issue; buying a house (or having kids…don’t even get me started) is often a much bigger commitment, financially, but for some reason people jump into these decisions while being afraid of getting married.
This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.
November 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM #633659Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=walterwhite]i think you can be socially liberal and still think unmarried people shouldn’t live together. It’s just not a good idea.[/quote]
scaredy, I consider myself a “social independent” and can agree that an unmarried heterosexual couple should NOT buy a house together for a WHOLE LOT of reasons, mostly being that I’ve just seen a lot of STUFF in my day. And yes, I’ve had buyer-clients in this category.
I have NO problems with unmarried couples living together.
This is just a bad idea, overall, to buy a house with a partner you are not married to. The decision to do this is fraught with minefields.
You gotta ask yourself, if a couple wants to do this, why don’t they just get married first??
What is the REASON keeping them from marrying???[/quote]
Agree 100%.
It’s not the “living together” that’s a problem, it’s the unwillingness to commit to marriage that’s the issue; buying a house (or having kids…don’t even get me started) is often a much bigger commitment, financially, but for some reason people jump into these decisions while being afraid of getting married.
This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.
November 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM #633980Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=walterwhite]i think you can be socially liberal and still think unmarried people shouldn’t live together. It’s just not a good idea.[/quote]
scaredy, I consider myself a “social independent” and can agree that an unmarried heterosexual couple should NOT buy a house together for a WHOLE LOT of reasons, mostly being that I’ve just seen a lot of STUFF in my day. And yes, I’ve had buyer-clients in this category.
I have NO problems with unmarried couples living together.
This is just a bad idea, overall, to buy a house with a partner you are not married to. The decision to do this is fraught with minefields.
You gotta ask yourself, if a couple wants to do this, why don’t they just get married first??
What is the REASON keeping them from marrying???[/quote]
Agree 100%.
It’s not the “living together” that’s a problem, it’s the unwillingness to commit to marriage that’s the issue; buying a house (or having kids…don’t even get me started) is often a much bigger commitment, financially, but for some reason people jump into these decisions while being afraid of getting married.
This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.
November 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM #632889bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter]This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.[/quote]
CAR, not only have I seen the “underwater” issue between these “tenants in common” where one may need to accept a position in another locale in a down market (due to UI running out), I have actually seen one party “die unexpectedly” and the other party then owning their “longtime home” as “tenants-in-common” with their “tenant-in-common’s” often recalcitrant, “next-of-kin,” due to their TIC not having a will leaving their ownership portion to them.
These are just TWO examples depicting the MINEFIELD that is taking title as “unrelated tenants-in-common.” :={
And if one is going to make a will leaving their TIC portion of real property to their “significant other” TIC, then WHY wouldn’t they MARRY them?? THAT is the $64M question here.
November 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM #632967Participant[quote=CA renter]This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.[/quote]
CAR, not only have I seen the “underwater” issue between these “tenants in common” where one may need to accept a position in another locale in a down market (due to UI running out), I have actually seen one party “die unexpectedly” and the other party then owning their “longtime home” as “tenants-in-common” with their “tenant-in-common’s” often recalcitrant, “next-of-kin,” due to their TIC not having a will leaving their ownership portion to them.
These are just TWO examples depicting the MINEFIELD that is taking title as “unrelated tenants-in-common.” :={
And if one is going to make a will leaving their TIC portion of real property to their “significant other” TIC, then WHY wouldn’t they MARRY them?? THAT is the $64M question here.
November 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM #633540Participant[quote=CA renter]This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.[/quote]
CAR, not only have I seen the “underwater” issue between these “tenants in common” where one may need to accept a position in another locale in a down market (due to UI running out), I have actually seen one party “die unexpectedly” and the other party then owning their “longtime home” as “tenants-in-common” with their “tenant-in-common’s” often recalcitrant, “next-of-kin,” due to their TIC not having a will leaving their ownership portion to them.
These are just TWO examples depicting the MINEFIELD that is taking title as “unrelated tenants-in-common.” :={
And if one is going to make a will leaving their TIC portion of real property to their “significant other” TIC, then WHY wouldn’t they MARRY them?? THAT is the $64M question here.
November 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM #633669Participant[quote=CA renter]This is especially important to consider when we are still in a potentially deflationary environment. What if the relationship doesn’t work, and the house is 30% underwater?
Like you, BG, I’ve also seen this end in ugly, ugly ways. If one is not committed enough to marry a partner, then one should think long and hard before buying a house (or having kids!) with that person.[/quote]
CAR, not only have I seen the “underwater” issue between these “tenants in common” where one may need to accept a position in another locale in a down market (due to UI running out), I have actually seen one party “die unexpectedly” and the other party then owning their “longtime home” as “tenants-in-common” with their “tenant-in-common’s” often recalcitrant, “next-of-kin,” due to their TIC not having a will leaving their ownership portion to them.
These are just TWO examples depicting the MINEFIELD that is taking title as “unrelated tenants-in-common.” :={
And if one is going to make a will leaving their TIC portion of real property to their “significant other” TIC, then WHY wouldn’t they MARRY them?? THAT is the $64M question here.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.