- This topic has 267 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
skerzz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM #396637May 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM #395997
patientrenter
ParticipantWith 3% down FHA loans available, and buyer tax credits on top of that, and possibly some kickbacks to the buyer from their agent or the builder of whoever, and no recourse beyond the house, why wouldn’t lots of people buy?
It’s the taxpayers who are buying homes now, with the adjustment that they are giving any future upside gain to the people who live in them. Gotta “save the economy”, ya know.
May 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM #396248ParticipantWith 3% down FHA loans available, and buyer tax credits on top of that, and possibly some kickbacks to the buyer from their agent or the builder of whoever, and no recourse beyond the house, why wouldn’t lots of people buy?
It’s the taxpayers who are buying homes now, with the adjustment that they are giving any future upside gain to the people who live in them. Gotta “save the economy”, ya know.
May 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM #396470ParticipantWith 3% down FHA loans available, and buyer tax credits on top of that, and possibly some kickbacks to the buyer from their agent or the builder of whoever, and no recourse beyond the house, why wouldn’t lots of people buy?
It’s the taxpayers who are buying homes now, with the adjustment that they are giving any future upside gain to the people who live in them. Gotta “save the economy”, ya know.
May 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM #396524ParticipantWith 3% down FHA loans available, and buyer tax credits on top of that, and possibly some kickbacks to the buyer from their agent or the builder of whoever, and no recourse beyond the house, why wouldn’t lots of people buy?
It’s the taxpayers who are buying homes now, with the adjustment that they are giving any future upside gain to the people who live in them. Gotta “save the economy”, ya know.
May 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM #396667ParticipantWith 3% down FHA loans available, and buyer tax credits on top of that, and possibly some kickbacks to the buyer from their agent or the builder of whoever, and no recourse beyond the house, why wouldn’t lots of people buy?
It’s the taxpayers who are buying homes now, with the adjustment that they are giving any future upside gain to the people who live in them. Gotta “save the economy”, ya know.
May 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM #395992Eugene
ParticipantLow tier is traditionally investor-owned. Before the bubble, renters accounted for 60% to 80% of residents in places like Logan Heights, National City, central Escondido. During the bubble, homeownership rate rose because some of these residents briefly became homeowners, and now things are returning back to normal.
Even at 20% U-6 unemployment, there are still enough jobs and enough fence-sitters left to absorb middle and high tier inventory.
May 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM #396243ParticipantLow tier is traditionally investor-owned. Before the bubble, renters accounted for 60% to 80% of residents in places like Logan Heights, National City, central Escondido. During the bubble, homeownership rate rose because some of these residents briefly became homeowners, and now things are returning back to normal.
Even at 20% U-6 unemployment, there are still enough jobs and enough fence-sitters left to absorb middle and high tier inventory.
May 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM #396465ParticipantLow tier is traditionally investor-owned. Before the bubble, renters accounted for 60% to 80% of residents in places like Logan Heights, National City, central Escondido. During the bubble, homeownership rate rose because some of these residents briefly became homeowners, and now things are returning back to normal.
Even at 20% U-6 unemployment, there are still enough jobs and enough fence-sitters left to absorb middle and high tier inventory.
May 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM #396519ParticipantLow tier is traditionally investor-owned. Before the bubble, renters accounted for 60% to 80% of residents in places like Logan Heights, National City, central Escondido. During the bubble, homeownership rate rose because some of these residents briefly became homeowners, and now things are returning back to normal.
Even at 20% U-6 unemployment, there are still enough jobs and enough fence-sitters left to absorb middle and high tier inventory.
May 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM #396662ParticipantLow tier is traditionally investor-owned. Before the bubble, renters accounted for 60% to 80% of residents in places like Logan Heights, National City, central Escondido. During the bubble, homeownership rate rose because some of these residents briefly became homeowners, and now things are returning back to normal.
Even at 20% U-6 unemployment, there are still enough jobs and enough fence-sitters left to absorb middle and high tier inventory.
May 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM #396012nostradamus
ParticipantI’ve often wondered who the heck would buy now as well.
People wouldn’t buy because homes are still overpriced. Give me as many incentives as you like, a lemon is still a lemon.
Having money or having a job does not mean you would or should throw money away buying a house.
Renting is cheaper. You can rent the average $500k crap shack in SD for what, $2k max per month? That’s being generous of course. In 1 year you paid $24k for rent then. Say you buy it instead. IMO you will lose at least 10% in one year. That’s $50k. Plus insurance, upkeep, tax, etc. etc. etc. Sure you might get a few thousand out of tax deductions (again being generous). Still doesn’t compensate for the difference.
I say if you’re on the fence, rent a house with just your *minimal* living requirements. Cheap. Re-evaluate buying in the winter. If not, wait tell next winter. Repeat. You’ll be happy you did.
May 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM #396263ParticipantI’ve often wondered who the heck would buy now as well.
People wouldn’t buy because homes are still overpriced. Give me as many incentives as you like, a lemon is still a lemon.
Having money or having a job does not mean you would or should throw money away buying a house.
Renting is cheaper. You can rent the average $500k crap shack in SD for what, $2k max per month? That’s being generous of course. In 1 year you paid $24k for rent then. Say you buy it instead. IMO you will lose at least 10% in one year. That’s $50k. Plus insurance, upkeep, tax, etc. etc. etc. Sure you might get a few thousand out of tax deductions (again being generous). Still doesn’t compensate for the difference.
I say if you’re on the fence, rent a house with just your *minimal* living requirements. Cheap. Re-evaluate buying in the winter. If not, wait tell next winter. Repeat. You’ll be happy you did.
May 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM #396485ParticipantI’ve often wondered who the heck would buy now as well.
People wouldn’t buy because homes are still overpriced. Give me as many incentives as you like, a lemon is still a lemon.
Having money or having a job does not mean you would or should throw money away buying a house.
Renting is cheaper. You can rent the average $500k crap shack in SD for what, $2k max per month? That’s being generous of course. In 1 year you paid $24k for rent then. Say you buy it instead. IMO you will lose at least 10% in one year. That’s $50k. Plus insurance, upkeep, tax, etc. etc. etc. Sure you might get a few thousand out of tax deductions (again being generous). Still doesn’t compensate for the difference.
I say if you’re on the fence, rent a house with just your *minimal* living requirements. Cheap. Re-evaluate buying in the winter. If not, wait tell next winter. Repeat. You’ll be happy you did.
May 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM #396539ParticipantI’ve often wondered who the heck would buy now as well.
People wouldn’t buy because homes are still overpriced. Give me as many incentives as you like, a lemon is still a lemon.
Having money or having a job does not mean you would or should throw money away buying a house.
Renting is cheaper. You can rent the average $500k crap shack in SD for what, $2k max per month? That’s being generous of course. In 1 year you paid $24k for rent then. Say you buy it instead. IMO you will lose at least 10% in one year. That’s $50k. Plus insurance, upkeep, tax, etc. etc. etc. Sure you might get a few thousand out of tax deductions (again being generous). Still doesn’t compensate for the difference.
I say if you’re on the fence, rent a house with just your *minimal* living requirements. Cheap. Re-evaluate buying in the winter. If not, wait tell next winter. Repeat. You’ll be happy you did.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.