Reverse mortgages: scourge of millenials

doogie

Reverse Mortgages are a government scam designed to artificially hold up house prices

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/baby-boomers-who-won-t-sell-are-dominating-the-housing-market

TierbsHsotBoobs

Related: the boomers need to die off

2001400ex

Clearly then the government must step in to force these old folks to sell and move into their kids basement. The free market isn't working.

Fenderbender123

I don't what the deal is with house prices these days...all I know is that my parents bought a a decent house for a family of 4 in the late 1980s in eastern Washington for like $55,000, and then sold it in 2005 for like $200,000. And they didn't add-on to it or restore it or anything fancy like that , and it wasn't in some tourist hot spot either. That was just how much the general price of houses went up in 20 years.

So that's almost quadruple the price. Now, I don't know if this is the right way to do the math, but wages certainly haven't quadrupled in that time frame, either. And it's more costly to get a job these days, too. My dad bought that house on a truck driver salary...a job he got with no experience, no schooling, and no special license. He got it by simply walking into a place that said "hiring truck drivers", going on a drive with an experienced driver, and having that driver tell his boss "yeah, he did good, you should hire him", and the boss saying "okay, be here tomorrow at 7". And it wasn't no high-stress trucking job, either. They were short runs in-state, he was home by 6pm every night, and he had weekends off. With that job, he was able to buy a decent house and raise 2 kids while m y mom stayed home and raised us, cooked for us, cleaned, etc.

I'm not saying baby boomers had it easier overall, but in some ways they did.

AZDuck

I should side with my generation (Gen X represent!) but I'm a homeowner so I'm going with the Republican mantra ("fuck you, I got mine") on this one

doogie

2001400ex said:

Clearly then the government must step in to force these old folks to sell and move into their kids basement. The free market isn't working.

You stooped motherfucker, it's the Government that killed the free market.

Fire_Marshall_Bill

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

Kaepsknee

Fenderbender123 said:

I don't what the deal is with house prices these days...all I know is that my parents bought a a decent house for a family of 4 in the late 1980s in eastern Washington for like $55,000, and then sold it in 2005 for like $200,000. And they didn't add-on to it or restore it or anything fancy like that , and it wasn't in some tourist hot spot either. That was just how much the general price of houses went up in 20 years.

So that's almost quadruple the price. Now, I don't know if this is the right way to do the math, but wages certainly haven't quadrupled in that time frame, either. And it's more costly to get a job these days, too. My dad bought that house on a truck driver salary...a job he got with no experience, no schooling, and no special license. He got it by simply walking into a place that said "hiring truck drivers", going on a drive with an experienced driver, and having that driver tell his boss "yeah, he did good, you should hire him", and the boss saying "okay, be here tomorrow at 7". And it wasn't no high-stress trucking job, either. They were short runs in-state, he was home by 6pm every night, and he had weekends off. With that job, he was able to buy a decent house and raise 2 kids while m y mom stayed home and raised us, cooked for us, cleaned, etc.

I'm not saying baby boomers had it easier overall, but in some ways they did.

Interest rates were in the double digits in the 80's and lenders were more stringent than when they sold the house in 2005. They literally wrote stated income loans that allowed for no income verification.... At all and it only cost you half a point to do so in 2005. So in reality your income only needed to increase 50% as you could buy that house at 4.5% in 2005 with $0 down as opposed to the 15-19% that your parents had on their loan.

Kaepsknee

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

CuntWaffle

I will ask real estate expert Kent Griswold his thoughts.

Pitchfork51

salemcoog said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

We have good credit?

Kaepsknee

Pitchfork51 said:

salemcoog said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

We have good credit?

NO.

RaceBannon

This is but the tip of the iceberg. Housing is holding up the house of cards. If the banks had to write off all the bad loans they are sitting on we have Crash 2, the Sequal.

The only equity most Americans have is the paper on their house if they own a house or on the house they are renting out to a millennial.

Regulations make it very expensive to build new housing hence the booming market for rehabbing old stock and 5. Profit

YellowSnow

salemcoog said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

GrundleStiltzkin

YellowSnow said:

salemcoog said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

We need an @Auburndawg power ranking of Fred Thompson careers.

RaceBannon

GrundleStiltzkin said:

YellowSnow said:

salemcoog said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

I've never heavily researched reverse mortgages, but just the way they are described by some old celeb shill like Pat Boone makes them sound really shady.

But But the late Fred Thompson and Tom Selleck also endorse them. They're great for the homeowner but a pain in the ass for the person who inherits the home, especiallyif they aren't gainfully employed and have good credit. Say.... like a standard HH poaster.

This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

We need an @Auburndawg power ranking of Fred Thompson careers.

Separated at birth?

RaceBannon

Joe Don would kick the Rock's ass by the way

UWhuskytskeet

salemcoog said:

Fenderbender123 said:

I don't what the deal is with house prices these days...all I know is that my parents bought a a decent house for a family of 4 in the late 1980s in eastern Washington for like $55,000, and then sold it in 2005 for like $200,000. And they didn't add-on to it or restore it or anything fancy like that , and it wasn't in some tourist hot spot either. That was just how much the general price of houses went up in 20 years.

So that's almost quadruple the price. Now, I don't know if this is the right way to do the math, but wages certainly haven't quadrupled in that time frame, either. And it's more costly to get a job these days, too. My dad bought that house on a truck driver salary...a job he got with no experience, no schooling, and no special license. He got it by simply walking into a place that said "hiring truck drivers", going on a drive with an experienced driver, and having that driver tell his boss "yeah, he did good, you should hire him", and the boss saying "okay, be here tomorrow at 7". And it wasn't no high-stress trucking job, either. They were short runs in-state, he was home by 6pm every night, and he had weekends off. With that job, he was able to buy a decent house and raise 2 kids while m y mom stayed home and raised us, cooked for us, cleaned, etc.

I'm not saying baby boomers had it easier overall, but in some ways they did.

Interest rates were in the double digits in the 80's and lenders were more stringent than when they sold the house in 2005. They literally wrote stated income loans that allowed for no income verification.... At all and it only cost you half a point to do so in 2005. So in reality your income only needed to increase 50% as you could buy that house at 4.5% in 2005 with $0 down as opposed to the 15-19% that your parents had on their loan.

Hey you said something correct!

Another difference is that many people don't get to take advantage of deducting mortgage interest with rates so low. That wasn't a problem when rates were 15%.

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

Joe Don would kick the Rock's ass by the way

Might need to get a ruling from @creepycoug on this one. I haven't seen the original version and therefore cannot offer an opinion.

Kaepsknee

UWhuskytskeet said:

salemcoog said:

Fenderbender123 said:

I don't what the deal is with house prices these days...all I know is that my parents bought a a decent house for a family of 4 in the late 1980s in eastern Washington for like $55,000, and then sold it in 2005 for like $200,000. And they didn't add-on to it or restore it or anything fancy like that , and it wasn't in some tourist hot spot either. That was just how much the general price of houses went up in 20 years.

So that's almost quadruple the price. Now, I don't know if this is the right way to do the math, but wages certainly haven't quadrupled in that time frame, either. And it's more costly to get a job these days, too. My dad bought that house on a truck driver salary...a job he got with no experience, no schooling, and no special license. He got it by simply walking into a place that said "hiring truck drivers", going on a drive with an experienced driver, and having that driver tell his boss "yeah, he did good, you should hire him", and the boss saying "okay, be here tomorrow at 7". And it wasn't no high-stress trucking job, either. They were short runs in-state, he was home by 6pm every night, and he had weekends off. With that job, he was able to buy a decent house and raise 2 kids while m y mom stayed home and raised us, cooked for us, cleaned, etc.

I'm not saying baby boomers had it easier overall, but in some ways they did.

Interest rates were in the double digits in the 80's and lenders were more stringent than when they sold the house in 2005. They literally wrote stated income loans that allowed for no income verification.... At all and it only cost you half a point to do so in 2005. So in reality your income only needed to increase 50% as you could buy that house at 4.5% in 2005 with $0 down as opposed to the 15-19% that your parents had on their loan.

Hey you said something correct!

Another difference is that many people don't get to take advantage of deducting mortgage interest with rates so low. That wasn't a problem when rates were 15%.

Hey you didn't!!!!... again.


When you are paying 15% on a $50,000 loan, the interest deduction is only slightly lower than when your paying 4.5% on a 200,000 loan.

But I get it,That pesky arithmetic is HARD!!!

Pitchfork51

I would like a good crash.

salemcoog said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

salemcoog said:

Fenderbender123 said:

I don't what the deal is with house prices these days...all I know is that my parents bought a a decent house for a family of 4 in the late 1980s in eastern Washington for like $55,000, and then sold it in 2005 for like $200,000. And they didn't add-on to it or restore it or anything fancy like that , and it wasn't in some tourist hot spot either. That was just how much the general price of houses went up in 20 years.

So that's almost quadruple the price. Now, I don't know if this is the right way to do the math, but wages certainly haven't quadrupled in that time frame, either. And it's more costly to get a job these days, too. My dad bought that house on a truck driver salary...a job he got with no experience, no schooling, and no special license. He got it by simply walking into a place that said "hiring truck drivers", going on a drive with an experienced driver, and having that driver tell his boss "yeah, he did good, you should hire him", and the boss saying "okay, be here tomorrow at 7". And it wasn't no high-stress trucking job, either. They were short runs in-state, he was home by 6pm every night, and he had weekends off. With that job, he was able to buy a decent house and raise 2 kids while m y mom stayed home and raised us, cooked for us, cleaned, etc.

I'm not saying baby boomers had it easier overall, but in some ways they did.

Interest rates were in the double digits in the 80's and lenders were more stringent than when they sold the house in 2005. They literally wrote stated income loans that allowed for no income verification.... At all and it only cost you half a point to do so in 2005. So in reality your income only needed to increase 50% as you could buy that house at 4.5% in 2005 with $0 down as opposed to the 15-19% that your parents had on their loan.

Hey you said something correct!

Another difference is that many people don't get to take advantage of deducting mortgage interest with rates so low. That wasn't a problem when rates were 15%.

Hey you didn't!!!!... again.


When you are paying 15% on a $50,000 loan, the interest deduction is only slightly lower than when your paying 4.5% on a 200,000 loan.

But I get it,That pesky arithmetic is HARD!!!

It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shit