- This topic has 1,443 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2010 at 9:23 AM #630445November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM #629364
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Example:
2010 Clairemont
400K purchase
2,000 rent
Monthly mortgage = 1574
monthly taxes ~ 400
[/quote]Doing different math. Back in 1996 one could buy in Clairemont as a starter home w/minimum down.
Today’s numbers. 400k w/3.5 % down (+closing costs) 4.5% x 30 years comes to 1,956 + prop tax 333 + PMI? not sure, about 350? + insurance? 75? comes to about $2,700 a month.
Don’t want to do FHA, which is a high percentage of purchases lately. Even w/%5 down, those numbers work out to 1,925 + 333 + 350 +75 is close to $2,700.
Considering 92117 is not exactly prime SD and lagging school distrcit, I really wonder how many people have almost 100k to put 20% down and closing costs to live in Clairemont.[/quote]
If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.
November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM #629443Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Example:
2010 Clairemont
400K purchase
2,000 rent
Monthly mortgage = 1574
monthly taxes ~ 400
[/quote]Doing different math. Back in 1996 one could buy in Clairemont as a starter home w/minimum down.
Today’s numbers. 400k w/3.5 % down (+closing costs) 4.5% x 30 years comes to 1,956 + prop tax 333 + PMI? not sure, about 350? + insurance? 75? comes to about $2,700 a month.
Don’t want to do FHA, which is a high percentage of purchases lately. Even w/%5 down, those numbers work out to 1,925 + 333 + 350 +75 is close to $2,700.
Considering 92117 is not exactly prime SD and lagging school distrcit, I really wonder how many people have almost 100k to put 20% down and closing costs to live in Clairemont.[/quote]
If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.
November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM #630016Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Example:
2010 Clairemont
400K purchase
2,000 rent
Monthly mortgage = 1574
monthly taxes ~ 400
[/quote]Doing different math. Back in 1996 one could buy in Clairemont as a starter home w/minimum down.
Today’s numbers. 400k w/3.5 % down (+closing costs) 4.5% x 30 years comes to 1,956 + prop tax 333 + PMI? not sure, about 350? + insurance? 75? comes to about $2,700 a month.
Don’t want to do FHA, which is a high percentage of purchases lately. Even w/%5 down, those numbers work out to 1,925 + 333 + 350 +75 is close to $2,700.
Considering 92117 is not exactly prime SD and lagging school distrcit, I really wonder how many people have almost 100k to put 20% down and closing costs to live in Clairemont.[/quote]
If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.
November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM #630143Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Example:
2010 Clairemont
400K purchase
2,000 rent
Monthly mortgage = 1574
monthly taxes ~ 400
[/quote]Doing different math. Back in 1996 one could buy in Clairemont as a starter home w/minimum down.
Today’s numbers. 400k w/3.5 % down (+closing costs) 4.5% x 30 years comes to 1,956 + prop tax 333 + PMI? not sure, about 350? + insurance? 75? comes to about $2,700 a month.
Don’t want to do FHA, which is a high percentage of purchases lately. Even w/%5 down, those numbers work out to 1,925 + 333 + 350 +75 is close to $2,700.
Considering 92117 is not exactly prime SD and lagging school distrcit, I really wonder how many people have almost 100k to put 20% down and closing costs to live in Clairemont.[/quote]
If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.
November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM #630460Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Example:
2010 Clairemont
400K purchase
2,000 rent
Monthly mortgage = 1574
monthly taxes ~ 400
[/quote]Doing different math. Back in 1996 one could buy in Clairemont as a starter home w/minimum down.
Today’s numbers. 400k w/3.5 % down (+closing costs) 4.5% x 30 years comes to 1,956 + prop tax 333 + PMI? not sure, about 350? + insurance? 75? comes to about $2,700 a month.
Don’t want to do FHA, which is a high percentage of purchases lately. Even w/%5 down, those numbers work out to 1,925 + 333 + 350 +75 is close to $2,700.
Considering 92117 is not exactly prime SD and lagging school distrcit, I really wonder how many people have almost 100k to put 20% down and closing costs to live in Clairemont.[/quote]
If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.
November 11, 2010 at 9:38 AM #629369briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]The problem is that you **can’t** have a recovery without a painful cleansing. We will face this pain, one way or another. I’d rather see the culprits behind this mess feel the pain more than those who’ve tried to be responsible and do the right thing.
[/quote]We could have had a cleansing, if back in 2008, the government had nationalized the banks and fired all the executives. But Paulson was in charge and would have none of it.
CA renter, I think that you are too fixated on punishment. Let it go. A collapse of the banks just to punish the bankers will hurt the common citizen much more. It’s too late to punish the bankers who created the crisis of 2008. They’ve already been bailed out. They’ve stashed their loot away and they will be sailing into the sunset.
We need to pick our battles wisely. That’s why I support policies that provide jobs to the people who need it most, rather than pouring more money onto the banks, hoping that the easy credit will trickle down.
The reality is that the easy money is not staying in America. It’s being invested in emerging markets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804504575606503406947416.html?mod=googlenews_wsjNovember 11, 2010 at 9:38 AM #629447Guest[quote=CA renter]The problem is that you **can’t** have a recovery without a painful cleansing. We will face this pain, one way or another. I’d rather see the culprits behind this mess feel the pain more than those who’ve tried to be responsible and do the right thing.
[/quote]We could have had a cleansing, if back in 2008, the government had nationalized the banks and fired all the executives. But Paulson was in charge and would have none of it.
CA renter, I think that you are too fixated on punishment. Let it go. A collapse of the banks just to punish the bankers will hurt the common citizen much more. It’s too late to punish the bankers who created the crisis of 2008. They’ve already been bailed out. They’ve stashed their loot away and they will be sailing into the sunset.
We need to pick our battles wisely. That’s why I support policies that provide jobs to the people who need it most, rather than pouring more money onto the banks, hoping that the easy credit will trickle down.
The reality is that the easy money is not staying in America. It’s being invested in emerging markets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804504575606503406947416.html?mod=googlenews_wsjNovember 11, 2010 at 9:38 AM #630021Guest[quote=CA renter]The problem is that you **can’t** have a recovery without a painful cleansing. We will face this pain, one way or another. I’d rather see the culprits behind this mess feel the pain more than those who’ve tried to be responsible and do the right thing.
[/quote]We could have had a cleansing, if back in 2008, the government had nationalized the banks and fired all the executives. But Paulson was in charge and would have none of it.
CA renter, I think that you are too fixated on punishment. Let it go. A collapse of the banks just to punish the bankers will hurt the common citizen much more. It’s too late to punish the bankers who created the crisis of 2008. They’ve already been bailed out. They’ve stashed their loot away and they will be sailing into the sunset.
We need to pick our battles wisely. That’s why I support policies that provide jobs to the people who need it most, rather than pouring more money onto the banks, hoping that the easy credit will trickle down.
The reality is that the easy money is not staying in America. It’s being invested in emerging markets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804504575606503406947416.html?mod=googlenews_wsjNovember 11, 2010 at 9:38 AM #630148Guest[quote=CA renter]The problem is that you **can’t** have a recovery without a painful cleansing. We will face this pain, one way or another. I’d rather see the culprits behind this mess feel the pain more than those who’ve tried to be responsible and do the right thing.
[/quote]We could have had a cleansing, if back in 2008, the government had nationalized the banks and fired all the executives. But Paulson was in charge and would have none of it.
CA renter, I think that you are too fixated on punishment. Let it go. A collapse of the banks just to punish the bankers will hurt the common citizen much more. It’s too late to punish the bankers who created the crisis of 2008. They’ve already been bailed out. They’ve stashed their loot away and they will be sailing into the sunset.
We need to pick our battles wisely. That’s why I support policies that provide jobs to the people who need it most, rather than pouring more money onto the banks, hoping that the easy credit will trickle down.
The reality is that the easy money is not staying in America. It’s being invested in emerging markets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804504575606503406947416.html?mod=googlenews_wsjNovember 11, 2010 at 9:38 AM #630465Guest[quote=CA renter]The problem is that you **can’t** have a recovery without a painful cleansing. We will face this pain, one way or another. I’d rather see the culprits behind this mess feel the pain more than those who’ve tried to be responsible and do the right thing.
[/quote]We could have had a cleansing, if back in 2008, the government had nationalized the banks and fired all the executives. But Paulson was in charge and would have none of it.
CA renter, I think that you are too fixated on punishment. Let it go. A collapse of the banks just to punish the bankers will hurt the common citizen much more. It’s too late to punish the bankers who created the crisis of 2008. They’ve already been bailed out. They’ve stashed their loot away and they will be sailing into the sunset.
We need to pick our battles wisely. That’s why I support policies that provide jobs to the people who need it most, rather than pouring more money onto the banks, hoping that the easy credit will trickle down.
The reality is that the easy money is not staying in America. It’s being invested in emerging markets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804504575606503406947416.html?mod=googlenews_wsjNovember 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM #629424jpinpb
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.[/quote]
So I guess the next question is has income gone up dramatically from 1996. Mine hasn’t. Maybe it has for some people. But I want to exclude the HELOC factor and talk just straight wages. Anyone have numbers?
November 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM #629502Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.[/quote]
So I guess the next question is has income gone up dramatically from 1996. Mine hasn’t. Maybe it has for some people. But I want to exclude the HELOC factor and talk just straight wages. Anyone have numbers?
November 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM #630076Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.[/quote]
So I guess the next question is has income gone up dramatically from 1996. Mine hasn’t. Maybe it has for some people. But I want to exclude the HELOC factor and talk just straight wages. Anyone have numbers?
November 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM #630203Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]If you want to compare minimum down, that’s fine. Let’s apply it to both situations.
2010: 3.5% down ~ 2700/month (35% or $700 premium over rent
1996: 3.5% down ~ 1520 / month (38% or 420 premium over rent)
P&I :~1150
Taxes: 170
PMI: 150
Insurance: 50Actually, this case more resembles what we did. We paid 5% down, and our PITI + PMI was about $1450 per month.
At that time we had a dual income, working professionals a couple years out of school, one of us with a PhD in Engineering, the other working as an Architect. Clairemont is what we could afford as a starter in 1996.
The same area is more affordable today by many metrics.[/quote]
So I guess the next question is has income gone up dramatically from 1996. Mine hasn’t. Maybe it has for some people. But I want to exclude the HELOC factor and talk just straight wages. Anyone have numbers?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.