Is buying a Home and living in it for SUCKERS???
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:48 pm    Post subject:

unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9845

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:51 pm    Post subject:

Here's a good calculator for owning vs. renting:

LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39643
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:45 pm    Post subject:

Another recent phenomenon that affects some renters these days is the whole short term rental model. I know two people over the last year or so who were told when they entered the lease renewal phase that they couldn't because the landlord had decided to go the short term route. Granted, they both lived in desirable areas near the beach and it's not going to be a factor for most renters. But it does demonstrate a point that affects all renters and that is that you are at the mercy of your landlord. At some point when the lease period is in limbo, you could find yourself at the whim of the landlord's future plans. I'm a firm believer in trying to control your own fate as much as possible.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
55
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 10989

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:14 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
axs wrote:
I'm assuming everyone here that rather own than rent a place would also rather buy a car than lease?


Not an apt comparison. Cars only depreciate. (and before some ass comes along and says that some cars go on to become classic collectibles, that is far from the norm).


And I'm pretty sure that a house doesn't immediately depreciate 20% the moment you move in.


His neighbors' houses do.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:52 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Another recent phenomenon that affects some renters these days is the whole short term rental model. I know two people over the last year or so who were told when they entered the lease renewal phase that they couldn't because the landlord had decided to go the short term route. Granted, they both lived in desirable areas near the beach and it's not going to be a factor for most renters. But it does demonstrate a point that affects all renters and that is that you are at the mercy of your landlord. At some point when the lease period is in limbo, you could find yourself at the whim of the landlord's future plans. I'm a firm believer in trying to control your own fate as much as possible.


If I were a landlord, I would much rather have a long term renter than go the Air B&B route. The weekly rents collected are much higher, but they attract a more cavalier customer, who may abuse your property more. Plus you run the risk of pissing off the neighbors who live there full time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:24 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:31 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
axs wrote:
I'm assuming everyone here that rather own than rent a place would also rather buy a car than lease?


Not an apt comparison. Cars only depreciate. (and before some ass comes along and says that some cars go on to become classic collectibles, that is far from the norm).


And I'm pretty sure that a house doesn't immediately depreciate 20% the moment you move in.


His neighbors' houses do.


Ha. And it doesn't matter if cars depreciate because the depreciation rate of a lease payment is much greater.

The benefit of this won't be realized in the short term, but in the long term it will. If you always lease, you will always have a hefty monthly payment. If you buy, and own for say, 10 years, you will have a monthly payment for about 5 years, and no payment for another 5 years. It's the latter 5 years where the real financial benefit is gained. (Yes, even factoring in average repair costs).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:03 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.


Well I would just buy a cheaper place. That $700k value could be $450,000 in less than 10 years if there's another crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 33379
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.


Well I would just buy a cheaper place. That $700k value could be $450,000 in less than 10 years if there's another crash.


It really depends on where you live. Where I live a 2 bed/2 bath condo sold for 2-300k in the 90's. That same condo sold for 600k in early 2000's. The crash brought it down to about 550. It's now on the market for 1.3 million and probably won't even last a week.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39643
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:52 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Another recent phenomenon that affects some renters these days is the whole short term rental model. I know two people over the last year or so who were told when they entered the lease renewal phase that they couldn't because the landlord had decided to go the short term route. Granted, they both lived in desirable areas near the beach and it's not going to be a factor for most renters. But it does demonstrate a point that affects all renters and that is that you are at the mercy of your landlord. At some point when the lease period is in limbo, you could find yourself at the whim of the landlord's future plans. I'm a firm believer in trying to control your own fate as much as possible.


If I were a landlord, I would much rather have a long term renter than go the Air B&B route. The weekly rents collected are much higher, but they attract a more cavalier customer, who may abuse your property more. Plus you run the risk of pissing off the neighbors who live there full time.


I agree, and while it's not a big problem, it does occur in tourist popular areas. I brought it up mostly as an example of how as a renter you ultimately have little say in your longterm prospects of staying where you are.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39643
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:54 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Hector the Pup wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
axs wrote:
I'm assuming everyone here that rather own than rent a place would also rather buy a car than lease?


Not an apt comparison. Cars only depreciate. (and before some ass comes along and says that some cars go on to become classic collectibles, that is far from the norm).


And I'm pretty sure that a house doesn't immediately depreciate 20% the moment you move in.


His neighbors' houses do.


You don't know that half of it . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79074
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:56 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Another recent phenomenon that affects some renters these days is the whole short term rental model. I know two people over the last year or so who were told when they entered the lease renewal phase that they couldn't because the landlord had decided to go the short term route. Granted, they both lived in desirable areas near the beach and it's not going to be a factor for most renters. But it does demonstrate a point that affects all renters and that is that you are at the mercy of your landlord. At some point when the lease period is in limbo, you could find yourself at the whim of the landlord's future plans. I'm a firm believer in trying to control your own fate as much as possible.


If I were a landlord, I would much rather have a long term renter than go the Air B&B route. The weekly rents collected are much higher, but they attract a more cavalier customer, who may abuse your property more. Plus you run the risk of pissing off the neighbors who live there full time.


I agree, and while it's not a big problem, it does occur in tourist popular areas. I brought it up mostly as an example of how as a renter you ultimately have little say in your longterm prospects of staying where you are.


It's a huge problem here.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:58 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.


Well I would just buy a cheaper place. That $700k value could be $450,000 in less than 10 years if there's another crash.


How does buying a $450,000 home in 10 years, make more sense financially than buying the same home for $195K home 20 years ago? In 10 years, he'll have no mortgage payment if he keeps his home even if it's only worth $450K.

If you assume he rents the same place between now and 10 years from now, he will have paid over $300,000 in rent by then.

If you own a home you bought for $195K that is now worth $700K, and you think a crash that will bring properties down by 45% is looming, then, the smart thing to do is to keep your home and save as much as possible, and then buy a similar home in 10 years for $450K.

Think of it like this... his mortgage is $1,100/month. If he sells and rents a similar home, the average monthly rent would be $2,600/month for 10 years. That's over $300K in rent spent.

Alternatively, if he keeps the home, and instead of paying $2,600/month rent he pays $1,100/month and then puts the $1,500/month away in savings, he will have $180K plus interest saved in 10 years.

You can use that money to put a down payment on a similar SECOND home that will then be worth $450K.

The monthly mortgage on THAT home would be around $1,400/month. If the prices fall in 10 years, he can still rent the first home (now paid off) for around $2,100 per month.

The renters in the first home are now paying the mortgage on his second home AND he is pocketing an extra $8.4K per year for a rainy day.


Last edited by ringfinger on Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39643
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:58 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Another recent phenomenon that affects some renters these days is the whole short term rental model. I know two people over the last year or so who were told when they entered the lease renewal phase that they couldn't because the landlord had decided to go the short term route. Granted, they both lived in desirable areas near the beach and it's not going to be a factor for most renters. But it does demonstrate a point that affects all renters and that is that you are at the mercy of your landlord. At some point when the lease period is in limbo, you could find yourself at the whim of the landlord's future plans. I'm a firm believer in trying to control your own fate as much as possible.


If I were a landlord, I would much rather have a long term renter than go the Air B&B route. The weekly rents collected are much higher, but they attract a more cavalier customer, who may abuse your property more. Plus you run the risk of pissing off the neighbors who live there full time.


I agree, and while it's not a big problem, it does occur in tourist popular areas. I brought it up mostly as an example of how as a renter you ultimately have little say in your longterm prospects of staying where you are.


It's a huge problem here.


And I guess one I will be contributing to in December.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 1741

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.


Well I would just buy a cheaper place. That $700k value could be $450,000 in less than 10 years if there's another crash.


How does buying a $450,000 home in 10 years, make more sense financially than buying the same home for $195K home 20 years ago? In 10 years, he'll have no mortgage payment if he keeps his home even if it's only worth $450K.

If you assume he rents the same place between now and 10 years from now, he will have paid over $300,000 in rent by then.

If you own a home you bought for $195K that is now worth $700K, and you think a crash that will bring properties down by 45% is looming, then, the smart thing to do is to keep your home and save as much as possible, and then buy a similar home in 10 years for $450K.

Think of it like this... his mortgage is $1,100/month. If he sells and rents a similar home, the average monthly rent would be $2,600/month for 10 years. That's over $300K in rent spent.

Alternatively, if he keeps the home, and instead of paying $2,600/month rent he pays $1,100/month and then puts the $1,500/month away in savings, he will have $180K plus interest saved in 10 years.

You can use that money to put a down payment on a similar SECOND home that will then be worth $450K.

The monthly mortgage on THAT home would be around $1,400/month. If the prices fall in 10 years, he can still rent the first home (now paid off) for around $2,100 per month.

The renters in the first home are now paying the mortgage on his second home AND he is pocketing an extra $8.4K per year for a rainy day.


I would buy a cheaper place too if I thought there was a bust coming. Sell for a profit of 500k buy a condo for 200k and have 300k in the bank but thats only what I would do.
(It minimizes the loss of value, a 50% loss on a 200k condo isnt nearly as bad and no rent payments)
_________________
Starting Lineup:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...


I would sell that thing right now before the market drops again.


I think that would be a terrible idea and would not recommend it at all.

Why would you do that? He'll just spend all of that equity on renting instead.

Mortgage rates 20 years ago were about 8%. Assuming a standard 20% down on his $200K home and no refis, his monthly mortgage payment is at most $1,100. A $700K property can rent for probably around $3,200/month.

Not to mention, in under 10 years, he will likely own the home outright, meaning his cost to live will be essentially $0.


Well I would just buy a cheaper place. That $700k value could be $450,000 in less than 10 years if there's another crash.


How does buying a $450,000 home in 10 years, make more sense financially than buying the same home for $195K home 20 years ago? In 10 years, he'll have no mortgage payment if he keeps his home even if it's only worth $450K.

If you assume he rents the same place between now and 10 years from now, he will have paid over $300,000 in rent by then.

If you own a home you bought for $195K that is now worth $700K, and you think a crash that will bring properties down by 45% is looming, then, the smart thing to do is to keep your home and save as much as possible, and then buy a similar home in 10 years for $450K.

Think of it like this... his mortgage is $1,100/month. If he sells and rents a similar home, the average monthly rent would be $2,600/month for 10 years. That's over $300K in rent spent.

Alternatively, if he keeps the home, and instead of paying $2,600/month rent he pays $1,100/month and then puts the $1,500/month away in savings, he will have $180K plus interest saved in 10 years.

You can use that money to put a down payment on a similar SECOND home that will then be worth $450K.

The monthly mortgage on THAT home would be around $1,400/month. If the prices fall in 10 years, he can still rent the first home (now paid off) for around $2,100 per month.

The renters in the first home are now paying the mortgage on his second home AND he is pocketing an extra $8.4K per year for a rainy day.


I would buy a cheaper place too if I thought there was a bust coming. Sell for a profit of 500k buy a condo for 200k and have 300k in the bank but thats only what I would do.
(It minimizes the loss of value, a 50% loss on a 200k condo isnt nearly as bad and no rent payments)


No, no, no. Don't do that. I mean, burn the house down if you want, but, it would be wise to keep the house and buy the condo as a second property.

If the market crashes by 45% in 10 years, and you keep you house, you will have one property that you can rent out if you want for about $2,100 per month with NO mortgage payment remaining.

Then you buy a second condo like you said for $200K and let the renters in your first house, pay your mortgage on your second house and you pocket some as well.

You'll have income coming in, plus $700K in assets, on a mortgage that is like $160K for a net of $540K plus income from rental property.

If you sell, and re-buy, you'll burn all of your equity in renting for a decade, and have a $200K property to your name.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:28 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Tax bill keeps mortgage interest deduction for all existing mortgages BUT future buyers can only claim if home is $500,000 or less


Not good for over-priced areas. There are 2-bedroom houses in SoCal worth $700,000+.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Don Draper
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 24904
Location: RIP DLO

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:57 am    Post subject:

xxsicrokerxx wrote:
With this guy's logic you should never have a girlfriend or get married. That way you'll never be tied down. Never have to spend money on expensive dinners. Never need to buy her gifts. That way you'll save the money and invest in whatever you want.


Well actually that DOES make sense
_________________
Lonzo Ball Projected 2017-18 Stats: 16pts/8asts/5rebs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:53 am    Post subject:

Don Draper wrote:
xxsicrokerxx wrote:
With this guy's logic you should never have a girlfriend or get married. That way you'll never be tied down. Never have to spend money on expensive dinners. Never need to buy her gifts. That way you'll save the money and invest in whatever you want.


Well actually that DOES make sense


Ha. It does.

Additionally, having children is a poor financial decision.

But it's not always about the financial decision.

So net-net, don't try to make a financial argument for renting because there isn't one really. The benefit of renting is flexibility, and the price is financial. The benefit of ownership is financial, and the price is flexibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:56 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Tax bill keeps mortgage interest deduction for all existing mortgages BUT future buyers can only claim if home is $500,000 or less


Not good for over-priced areas. There are 2-bedroom houses in SoCal worth $700,000+.


Never understood how they can make those demarcations unilaterally like that in a scenario where pricing is anything but unilateral. It's not even close.

The median home price in the United States is $200K. So they are setting that MI bar at 2.5x.

In California, the comparable home to a $500K average U.S. home would be $1.25M.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 13843

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Tax bill keeps mortgage interest deduction for all existing mortgages BUT future buyers can only claim if home is $500,000 or less


I think you mean if the mortgage is $500,000 or less, not the home price. That would really suck if it's the value of the home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18766

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Tax bill keeps mortgage interest deduction for all existing mortgages BUT future buyers can only claim if home is $500,000 or less


I think you mean if the mortgage is $500,000 or less, not the home price. That would really suck if it's the value of the home.


You're correct, good catch. I looked it up, it's on the loan, not home price. And only on NEW mortgages.

So this would really only apply to those on jumbo loans (I think those start at $417K) anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/republican-tax-plan-to-lower-cap-on-mortgage-interest-deduction-to-500000-loans/2017/11/02/c0f594d6-bfd5-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.e3a187898748

Quote:
The legislation would cut in half the popular mortgage interest deduction used by millions of American homeowners, changing the deductionís rules for new mortgages. Presently, Americans can deduct interest payments made on their first $1 million worth of home loans. Under the bill, for new mortgages, they would only be able to deduct interest payments made on their first $500,000 worth of home loans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9845

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:04 am    Post subject:

And I assume the interest on the first $500K still would be deductible. Can't imagine a $501K mortgage would be ineligible, even for this government.

I can imagine the ripple effects this would have on the mortgage lending market, escrow market, real estate market, and homebuilding market.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Lonzo'sBalls
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 07 Sep 2017
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
And I assume the interest on the first $500K still would be deductible. Can't imagine a $501K mortgage would be ineligible, even for this government.

I can imagine the ripple effects this would have on the mortgage lending market, escrow market, real estate market, and homebuilding market.


This. Was just looking into buying. Won't be now till all this gets cleared up (plus I kind of hope it causes the CA housing market to crash and then I can swoop in and get a deal).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB