Why can I not get a loan?

[CBad]

Can’t we all just get a loan? (Sorry, couldn’t resist….)

TG, you are still hilarious. Scaredycat’s post made me laugh too. I live the “super cheap” life and I have to say, it’s great for removing stress and providing freedom. You have to be very anti keeping up with the Joneses though which I will agree that many women can’t do (I have to remind my husband how lucky he is sometimes). And I firmly believe that young children do not care what type of house/condo/apartment you own or rent or what size it is as long as they are cared for and loved. Some of my best childhood memories are from the 6 months that our family rented an apartment in between buying houses. The house my parents bought was 4000 sq. ft. and the apartment was probably 1000. After we moved to the house, we weren’t as close literally and emotionally.

[Coronita]

[quote=ncounty4]We actually already own a house that has declined in value, so we would be walking away from any equity we built. We have a rapidly growing family and don’t see why we should have to live in a townhouse when we make a quarter million dollars a year. We can actually afford well over an $800k house from a monthly cash flow perspective, but still value things like savings and investing. We also have 20% to put down, but unlike most people, don’t want to liquidate absolutely every asset we have to get into a house.[/quote]

Seems to me it’s pretty risky these days that if you don’t have 20% to put down on a home, you are buying too much home.

I thought I read a posting by someone that says they won’t offer loans to anyone for a second home who doesn’t show 30% equity in the home they plan to hold on to. That very well may be your case.

If you take a step back, I think it’s actually a good think banks aren’t qualifying you, considering I’m a taxpayer and part of my tax bill is going into this bailout.

While your household income is “higher” than average, with all due respect, you are carrying a larger risk by holding onto a depreciating condo AND not having enough savings to cover the bigger home….You are looking at it from a cash flow, but that assumes best case scenario. In this economy, forget about raises,etc, you aren’t factoring in potential unemployment that may hit you or your spouse or both for which you will need to live on your savings (which folks tend to underestimate).

If you don’t have 1 year’s worth of savings set aside for your expenses in this economy, I call this big risk if you plan on holding onto a depreciating condo + buying a new home at the same time. Normally, I’d say have a 6 month buffer, considering most of the time you would get some unemployment from CA….except it wouldn’t surprise me if you start seeing IOU’s from CA instead of actual payments….I’m being serious here. CA is up a doodoo and there was an article about CA going IOUs to people that overpaid their taxes in 2008.

[Coronita]

[quote=ncounty4]We actually already own a house that has declined in value, so we would be walking away from any equity we built. We have a rapidly growing family and don’t see why we should have to live in a townhouse when we make a quarter million dollars a year. We can actually afford well over an $800k house from a monthly cash flow perspective, but still value things like savings and investing. We also have 20% to put down, but unlike most people, don’t want to liquidate absolutely every asset we have to get into a house.[/quote]

Seems to me it’s pretty risky these days that if you don’t have 20% to put down on a home, you are buying too much home.

I thought I read a posting by someone that says they won’t offer loans to anyone for a second home who doesn’t show 30% equity in the home they plan to hold on to. That very well may be your case.

If you take a step back, I think it’s actually a good think banks aren’t qualifying you, considering I’m a taxpayer and part of my tax bill is going into this bailout.

While your household income is “higher” than average, with all due respect, you are carrying a larger risk by holding onto a depreciating condo AND not having enough savings to cover the bigger home….You are looking at it from a cash flow, but that assumes best case scenario. In this economy, forget about raises,etc, you aren’t factoring in potential unemployment that may hit you or your spouse or both for which you will need to live on your savings (which folks tend to underestimate).

If you don’t have 1 year’s worth of savings set aside for your expenses in this economy, I call this big risk if you plan on holding onto a depreciating condo + buying a new home at the same time. Normally, I’d say have a 6 month buffer, considering most of the time you would get some unemployment from CA….except it wouldn’t surprise me if you start seeing IOU’s from CA instead of actual payments….I’m being serious here. CA is up a doodoo and there was an article about CA going IOUs to people that overpaid their taxes in 2008.

[Coronita]

[quote=ncounty4]We actually already own a house that has declined in value, so we would be walking away from any equity we built. We have a rapidly growing family and don’t see why we should have to live in a townhouse when we make a quarter million dollars a year. We can actually afford well over an $800k house from a monthly cash flow perspective, but still value things like savings and investing. We also have 20% to put down, but unlike most people, don’t want to liquidate absolutely every asset we have to get into a house.[/quote]

Seems to me it’s pretty risky these days that if you don’t have 20% to put down on a home, you are buying too much home.

I thought I read a posting by someone that says they won’t offer loans to anyone for a second home who doesn’t show 30% equity in the home they plan to hold on to. That very well may be your case.

If you take a step back, I think it’s actually a good think banks aren’t qualifying you, considering I’m a taxpayer and part of my tax bill is going into this bailout.

While your household income is “higher” than average, with all due respect, you are carrying a larger risk by holding onto a depreciating condo AND not having enough savings to cover the bigger home….You are looking at it from a cash flow, but that assumes best case scenario. In this economy, forget about raises,etc, you aren’t factoring in potential unemployment that may hit you or your spouse or both for which you will need to live on your savings (which folks tend to underestimate).

If you don’t have 1 year’s worth of savings set aside for your expenses in this economy, I call this big risk if you plan on holding onto a depreciating condo + buying a new home at the same time. Normally, I’d say have a 6 month buffer, considering most of the time you would get some unemployment from CA….except it wouldn’t surprise me if you start seeing IOU’s from CA instead of actual payments….I’m being serious here. CA is up a doodoo and there was an article about CA going IOUs to people that overpaid their taxes in 2008.

[Coronita]

[quote=ncounty4]We actually already own a house that has declined in value, so we would be walking away from any equity we built. We have a rapidly growing family and don’t see why we should have to live in a townhouse when we make a quarter million dollars a year. We can actually afford well over an $800k house from a monthly cash flow perspective, but still value things like savings and investing. We also have 20% to put down, but unlike most people, don’t want to liquidate absolutely every asset we have to get into a house.[/quote]

Seems to me it’s pretty risky these days that if you don’t have 20% to put down on a home, you are buying too much home.

I thought I read a posting by someone that says they won’t offer loans to anyone for a second home who doesn’t show 30% equity in the home they plan to hold on to. That very well may be your case.

If you take a step back, I think it’s actually a good think banks aren’t qualifying you, considering I’m a taxpayer and part of my tax bill is going into this bailout.

While your household income is “higher” than average, with all due respect, you are carrying a larger risk by holding onto a depreciating condo AND not having enough savings to cover the bigger home….You are looking at it from a cash flow, but that assumes best case scenario. In this economy, forget about raises,etc, you aren’t factoring in potential unemployment that may hit you or your spouse or both for which you will need to live on your savings (which folks tend to underestimate).

If you don’t have 1 year’s worth of savings set aside for your expenses in this economy, I call this big risk if you plan on holding onto a depreciating condo + buying a new home at the same time. Normally, I’d say have a 6 month buffer, considering most of the time you would get some unemployment from CA….except it wouldn’t surprise me if you start seeing IOU’s from CA instead of actual payments….I’m being serious here. CA is up a doodoo and there was an article about CA going IOUs to people that overpaid their taxes in 2008.

[Coronita]

[quote=ncounty4]We actually already own a house that has declined in value, so we would be walking away from any equity we built. We have a rapidly growing family and don’t see why we should have to live in a townhouse when we make a quarter million dollars a year. We can actually afford well over an $800k house from a monthly cash flow perspective, but still value things like savings and investing. We also have 20% to put down, but unlike most people, don’t want to liquidate absolutely every asset we have to get into a house.[/quote]

Seems to me it’s pretty risky these days that if you don’t have 20% to put down on a home, you are buying too much home.

I thought I read a posting by someone that says they won’t offer loans to anyone for a second home who doesn’t show 30% equity in the home they plan to hold on to. That very well may be your case.

If you take a step back, I think it’s actually a good think banks aren’t qualifying you, considering I’m a taxpayer and part of my tax bill is going into this bailout.

While your household income is “higher” than average, with all due respect, you are carrying a larger risk by holding onto a depreciating condo AND not having enough savings to cover the bigger home….You are looking at it from a cash flow, but that assumes best case scenario. In this economy, forget about raises,etc, you aren’t factoring in potential unemployment that may hit you or your spouse or both for which you will need to live on your savings (which folks tend to underestimate).

If you don’t have 1 year’s worth of savings set aside for your expenses in this economy, I call this big risk if you plan on holding onto a depreciating condo + buying a new home at the same time. Normally, I’d say have a 6 month buffer, considering most of the time you would get some unemployment from CA….except it wouldn’t surprise me if you start seeing IOU’s from CA instead of actual payments….I’m being serious here. CA is up a doodoo and there was an article about CA going IOUs to people that overpaid their taxes in 2008.

[davelj]

[quote=paramount]Not to be self-righteous, but I am amazed at people’s love of money on this board disguised as frugality or something similiar.

You came in with nothing, you’ll leave with nothing.

How many people on this board give even 5% of their income to charity, is charity even part of your budget?

My suggestion: Spend your fricken $$ and take your family on regular vacations, Disneyland, see the country, national parks and forests,camping, give $$ to charity whatever – that time with your family is what’s precious, not a damn house or even a job.

It’s always about me me me me house house house bmw bmw bmw bla bla bla.

This country is screwed, our priorities are all jacked up.

How many families have 2 incomes so they can live in a McMansion or drive a Mercedes instead of one parent staying home with their precious children.

Geographically speaking Southern California is a diseased society.[/quote]

Posts like these amuse me greatly.

First of all, starting out a post with “Not to be self-righteous, but…” is basically saying, “Pardon me while I get extremely self-righteous.” I mean, let’s call a spade a spade for God’s sake.

Now, just for perspective in the context of this post, I gave slightly less than 10% of my after-tax income to charities last year. I don’t really target a percentage, but that’s where it came out. Does this make me better or worse than anyone else? Nope. After all, the degree to which I’m charitable is driven by what I want to do, NOT by what others want me to do. If I didn’t enjoy helping others, I wouldn’t bother – trust me. So, as Bill Clinton (for whom I have no affinity whatsoever) pointed out in a recent book, “Charity is one of the most selfish acts a person can engage in.”

So, when you say that acquiring material goods is all about “me me me…” I’d point out that almost everything a person does in life is about “me me me.” With the exception of taxes and following laws, pretty much every choice you make is about YOU. You don’t want to have kids? That’s about what YOU want. You want to have kids? Again, that’s about what YOU want. It ain’t about the betterment of society. And even if it was, again, it would ultimately come back to being about YOU.

And, anyhow, if you believe that the purpose of our lives is to engage in more charity and avoid material goods… why aren’t you in Africa helping the poor? Certainly living here in the US (with all that implies from a material perspective) is awfully unnecessarily extravagant, don’t you think? I’m sure that someone starving in Asia would get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of your post. I mean, clearly you aren’t living up the ideal you’ve built up in your own mind.

So, please. Spare me the self-righteousness. If you think about it for 5 seconds I think that you’ll find that “your priorities” are no more noble than any one else’s priorities in the context of selflessness. You just view them as noble because they’re yours. But at the end of the day you’re just as self-interested as the next person. We all just have different things that make us content.

So, two points:

Where you stand depends upon where you sit.

The problem with high ideals is that they are seldom easy to live by.

[davelj]

[quote=paramount]Not to be self-righteous, but I am amazed at people’s love of money on this board disguised as frugality or something similiar.

You came in with nothing, you’ll leave with nothing.

How many people on this board give even 5% of their income to charity, is charity even part of your budget?

My suggestion: Spend your fricken $$ and take your family on regular vacations, Disneyland, see the country, national parks and forests,camping, give $$ to charity whatever – that time with your family is what’s precious, not a damn house or even a job.

It’s always about me me me me house house house bmw bmw bmw bla bla bla.

This country is screwed, our priorities are all jacked up.

How many families have 2 incomes so they can live in a McMansion or drive a Mercedes instead of one parent staying home with their precious children.

Geographically speaking Southern California is a diseased society.[/quote]

Posts like these amuse me greatly.

First of all, starting out a post with “Not to be self-righteous, but…” is basically saying, “Pardon me while I get extremely self-righteous.” I mean, let’s call a spade a spade for God’s sake.

Now, just for perspective in the context of this post, I gave slightly less than 10% of my after-tax income to charities last year. I don’t really target a percentage, but that’s where it came out. Does this make me better or worse than anyone else? Nope. After all, the degree to which I’m charitable is driven by what I want to do, NOT by what others want me to do. If I didn’t enjoy helping others, I wouldn’t bother – trust me. So, as Bill Clinton (for whom I have no affinity whatsoever) pointed out in a recent book, “Charity is one of the most selfish acts a person can engage in.”

So, when you say that acquiring material goods is all about “me me me…” I’d point out that almost everything a person does in life is about “me me me.” With the exception of taxes and following laws, pretty much every choice you make is about YOU. You don’t want to have kids? That’s about what YOU want. You want to have kids? Again, that’s about what YOU want. It ain’t about the betterment of society. And even if it was, again, it would ultimately come back to being about YOU.

And, anyhow, if you believe that the purpose of our lives is to engage in more charity and avoid material goods… why aren’t you in Africa helping the poor? Certainly living here in the US (with all that implies from a material perspective) is awfully unnecessarily extravagant, don’t you think? I’m sure that someone starving in Asia would get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of your post. I mean, clearly you aren’t living up the ideal you’ve built up in your own mind.

So, please. Spare me the self-righteousness. If you think about it for 5 seconds I think that you’ll find that “your priorities” are no more noble than any one else’s priorities in the context of selflessness. You just view them as noble because they’re yours. But at the end of the day you’re just as self-interested as the next person. We all just have different things that make us content.

So, two points:

Where you stand depends upon where you sit.

The problem with high ideals is that they are seldom easy to live by.

[davelj]

[quote=paramount]Not to be self-righteous, but I am amazed at people’s love of money on this board disguised as frugality or something similiar.

You came in with nothing, you’ll leave with nothing.

How many people on this board give even 5% of their income to charity, is charity even part of your budget?

My suggestion: Spend your fricken $$ and take your family on regular vacations, Disneyland, see the country, national parks and forests,camping, give $$ to charity whatever – that time with your family is what’s precious, not a damn house or even a job.

It’s always about me me me me house house house bmw bmw bmw bla bla bla.

This country is screwed, our priorities are all jacked up.

How many families have 2 incomes so they can live in a McMansion or drive a Mercedes instead of one parent staying home with their precious children.

Geographically speaking Southern California is a diseased society.[/quote]

Posts like these amuse me greatly.

First of all, starting out a post with “Not to be self-righteous, but…” is basically saying, “Pardon me while I get extremely self-righteous.” I mean, let’s call a spade a spade for God’s sake.

Now, just for perspective in the context of this post, I gave slightly less than 10% of my after-tax income to charities last year. I don’t really target a percentage, but that’s where it came out. Does this make me better or worse than anyone else? Nope. After all, the degree to which I’m charitable is driven by what I want to do, NOT by what others want me to do. If I didn’t enjoy helping others, I wouldn’t bother – trust me. So, as Bill Clinton (for whom I have no affinity whatsoever) pointed out in a recent book, “Charity is one of the most selfish acts a person can engage in.”

So, when you say that acquiring material goods is all about “me me me…” I’d point out that almost everything a person does in life is about “me me me.” With the exception of taxes and following laws, pretty much every choice you make is about YOU. You don’t want to have kids? That’s about what YOU want. You want to have kids? Again, that’s about what YOU want. It ain’t about the betterment of society. And even if it was, again, it would ultimately come back to being about YOU.

And, anyhow, if you believe that the purpose of our lives is to engage in more charity and avoid material goods… why aren’t you in Africa helping the poor? Certainly living here in the US (with all that implies from a material perspective) is awfully unnecessarily extravagant, don’t you think? I’m sure that someone starving in Asia would get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of your post. I mean, clearly you aren’t living up the ideal you’ve built up in your own mind.

So, please. Spare me the self-righteousness. If you think about it for 5 seconds I think that you’ll find that “your priorities” are no more noble than any one else’s priorities in the context of selflessness. You just view them as noble because they’re yours. But at the end of the day you’re just as self-interested as the next person. We all just have different things that make us content.

So, two points:

Where you stand depends upon where you sit.

The problem with high ideals is that they are seldom easy to live by.

[davelj]

[quote=paramount]Not to be self-righteous, but I am amazed at people’s love of money on this board disguised as frugality or something similiar.

You came in with nothing, you’ll leave with nothing.

How many people on this board give even 5% of their income to charity, is charity even part of your budget?

My suggestion: Spend your fricken $$ and take your family on regular vacations, Disneyland, see the country, national parks and forests,camping, give $$ to charity whatever – that time with your family is what’s precious, not a damn house or even a job.

It’s always about me me me me house house house bmw bmw bmw bla bla bla.

This country is screwed, our priorities are all jacked up.

How many families have 2 incomes so they can live in a McMansion or drive a Mercedes instead of one parent staying home with their precious children.

Geographically speaking Southern California is a diseased society.[/quote]

Posts like these amuse me greatly.

First of all, starting out a post with “Not to be self-righteous, but…” is basically saying, “Pardon me while I get extremely self-righteous.” I mean, let’s call a spade a spade for God’s sake.

Now, just for perspective in the context of this post, I gave slightly less than 10% of my after-tax income to charities last year. I don’t really target a percentage, but that’s where it came out. Does this make me better or worse than anyone else? Nope. After all, the degree to which I’m charitable is driven by what I want to do, NOT by what others want me to do. If I didn’t enjoy helping others, I wouldn’t bother – trust me. So, as Bill Clinton (for whom I have no affinity whatsoever) pointed out in a recent book, “Charity is one of the most selfish acts a person can engage in.”

So, when you say that acquiring material goods is all about “me me me…” I’d point out that almost everything a person does in life is about “me me me.” With the exception of taxes and following laws, pretty much every choice you make is about YOU. You don’t want to have kids? That’s about what YOU want. You want to have kids? Again, that’s about what YOU want. It ain’t about the betterment of society. And even if it was, again, it would ultimately come back to being about YOU.

And, anyhow, if you believe that the purpose of our lives is to engage in more charity and avoid material goods… why aren’t you in Africa helping the poor? Certainly living here in the US (with all that implies from a material perspective) is awfully unnecessarily extravagant, don’t you think? I’m sure that someone starving in Asia would get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of your post. I mean, clearly you aren’t living up the ideal you’ve built up in your own mind.

So, please. Spare me the self-righteousness. If you think about it for 5 seconds I think that you’ll find that “your priorities” are no more noble than any one else’s priorities in the context of selflessness. You just view them as noble because they’re yours. But at the end of the day you’re just as self-interested as the next person. We all just have different things that make us content.

So, two points:

Where you stand depends upon where you sit.

The problem with high ideals is that they are seldom easy to live by.

[davelj]

[quote=paramount]Not to be self-righteous, but I am amazed at people’s love of money on this board disguised as frugality or something similiar.

You came in with nothing, you’ll leave with nothing.

How many people on this board give even 5% of their income to charity, is charity even part of your budget?

My suggestion: Spend your fricken $$ and take your family on regular vacations, Disneyland, see the country, national parks and forests,camping, give $$ to charity whatever – that time with your family is what’s precious, not a damn house or even a job.

It’s always about me me me me house house house bmw bmw bmw bla bla bla.

This country is screwed, our priorities are all jacked up.

How many families have 2 incomes so they can live in a McMansion or drive a Mercedes instead of one parent staying home with their precious children.

Geographically speaking Southern California is a diseased society.[/quote]

Posts like these amuse me greatly.

First of all, starting out a post with “Not to be self-righteous, but…” is basically saying, “Pardon me while I get extremely self-righteous.” I mean, let’s call a spade a spade for God’s sake.

Now, just for perspective in the context of this post, I gave slightly less than 10% of my after-tax income to charities last year. I don’t really target a percentage, but that’s where it came out. Does this make me better or worse than anyone else? Nope. After all, the degree to which I’m charitable is driven by what I want to do, NOT by what others want me to do. If I didn’t enjoy helping others, I wouldn’t bother – trust me. So, as Bill Clinton (for whom I have no affinity whatsoever) pointed out in a recent book, “Charity is one of the most selfish acts a person can engage in.”

So, when you say that acquiring material goods is all about “me me me…” I’d point out that almost everything a person does in life is about “me me me.” With the exception of taxes and following laws, pretty much every choice you make is about YOU. You don’t want to have kids? That’s about what YOU want. You want to have kids? Again, that’s about what YOU want. It ain’t about the betterment of society. And even if it was, again, it would ultimately come back to being about YOU.

And, anyhow, if you believe that the purpose of our lives is to engage in more charity and avoid material goods… why aren’t you in Africa helping the poor? Certainly living here in the US (with all that implies from a material perspective) is awfully unnecessarily extravagant, don’t you think? I’m sure that someone starving in Asia would get a big laugh at the hypocrisy of your post. I mean, clearly you aren’t living up the ideal you’ve built up in your own mind.

So, please. Spare me the self-righteousness. If you think about it for 5 seconds I think that you’ll find that “your priorities” are no more noble than any one else’s priorities in the context of selflessness. You just view them as noble because they’re yours. But at the end of the day you’re just as self-interested as the next person. We all just have different things that make us content.

So, two points:

Where you stand depends upon where you sit.

The problem with high ideals is that they are seldom easy to live by.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: While I feel that elements of your post were on target, you also missed some significant points as well.

Speaking solely of Southern California, it goes without saying and often without remark that we live in a very materialistic section of the US. People are judged by their zip code, their cars, their clothes and their “wealth” (which generally means they’re leveraged to their eyeballs).

A sad side effect of this is the impact it has on our kids, especially a willingness to judge people not by their character or virtues, but rather by what they drive and where they live and all the shiny baubles they’ve accumulated.

I don’t think Paramount is mistaken when he opines that time and money are more well spent in trying to raise better kids, or improve the “real” quality of life, which isn’t the mindless acquisition of more things, but just trying to be a better person and live a better life.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: While I feel that elements of your post were on target, you also missed some significant points as well.

Speaking solely of Southern California, it goes without saying and often without remark that we live in a very materialistic section of the US. People are judged by their zip code, their cars, their clothes and their “wealth” (which generally means they’re leveraged to their eyeballs).

A sad side effect of this is the impact it has on our kids, especially a willingness to judge people not by their character or virtues, but rather by what they drive and where they live and all the shiny baubles they’ve accumulated.

I don’t think Paramount is mistaken when he opines that time and money are more well spent in trying to raise better kids, or improve the “real” quality of life, which isn’t the mindless acquisition of more things, but just trying to be a better person and live a better life.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: While I feel that elements of your post were on target, you also missed some significant points as well.

Speaking solely of Southern California, it goes without saying and often without remark that we live in a very materialistic section of the US. People are judged by their zip code, their cars, their clothes and their “wealth” (which generally means they’re leveraged to their eyeballs).

A sad side effect of this is the impact it has on our kids, especially a willingness to judge people not by their character or virtues, but rather by what they drive and where they live and all the shiny baubles they’ve accumulated.

I don’t think Paramount is mistaken when he opines that time and money are more well spent in trying to raise better kids, or improve the “real” quality of life, which isn’t the mindless acquisition of more things, but just trying to be a better person and live a better life.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: While I feel that elements of your post were on target, you also missed some significant points as well.

Speaking solely of Southern California, it goes without saying and often without remark that we live in a very materialistic section of the US. People are judged by their zip code, their cars, their clothes and their “wealth” (which generally means they’re leveraged to their eyeballs).

A sad side effect of this is the impact it has on our kids, especially a willingness to judge people not by their character or virtues, but rather by what they drive and where they live and all the shiny baubles they’ve accumulated.

I don’t think Paramount is mistaken when he opines that time and money are more well spent in trying to raise better kids, or improve the “real” quality of life, which isn’t the mindless acquisition of more things, but just trying to be a better person and live a better life.

[Author]

Posts