Reverse mortgages: scourge of millenials
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/baby-boomers-who-won-t-sell-are-dominating-the-housing-market
Comments
-
Related: the boomers need to die off
-
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.
-
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. -
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
-
You stooped motherfucker, it's the Government that killed the free market.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.
-
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.
-
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.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. -
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.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.
-
I will ask real estate expert Kent Griswold his thoughts.
-
We have good credit?salemcoog said:
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.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.
-
NO.Pitchfork51 said:
We have good credit?salemcoog said:
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.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.
-
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 -
This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.salemcoog said:
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.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.
-
We need an @Auburndawg power ranking of Fred Thompson careers.YellowSnow said:
This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.salemcoog said:
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.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.
-
Separated at birth?GrundleStiltzkin said:
We need an @Auburndawg power ranking of Fred Thompson careers.YellowSnow said:
This reverse mortgage business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.salemcoog said:
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.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.
-
Joe Don would kick the Rock's ass by the way
-
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%. -
Might need to get a ruling from @creepycoug on this one. I haven't seen the original version and therefore cannot offer an opinion.RaceBannon said:Joe Don would kick the Rock's ass by the way
-
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
-
I would like a good crash.
It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shitsalemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!! -
Joe Don. Hands down. Not even a discushin.YellowSnow said:
Might need to get a ruling from @creepycoug on this one. I haven't seen the original version and therefore cannot offer an opinion.RaceBannon said:Joe Don would kick the Rock's ass by the way
-
Hey look, you are dumb again!salemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
Guess how long you can continue to itemize mortgage interest with a 15% rate vs a 4% rate. -
He says at 11AM. Proves you are a messican btw.Pitchfork51 said:I would like a good crash.
It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shitsalemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
How do you starve a messican?
Hide his food stamps under his work boots. -
Do lazy jokes work for Mexicans?Swaye said:
He says at 11AM. Proves you are a messican btw.Pitchfork51 said:I would like a good crash.
It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shitsalemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
How do you starve a messican?
Hide his food stamps under his work boots. -
They do when your Injun. It's called deflection.Pitchfork51 said:
Do lazy jokes work for Mexicans?Swaye said:
He says at 11AM. Proves you are a messican btw.Pitchfork51 said:I would like a good crash.
It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shitsalemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
How do you starve a messican?
Hide his food stamps under his work boots. -
*you're
FML -
As long as the term is or as long as its worth it to do so. It makes no difference.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey look, you are dumb again!salemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
Guess how long you can continue to itemize mortgage interest with a 15% rate vs a 4% rate.
Let may put this in a way that you can understand. Unless you are really trying to say its better to pay interest in so that you may get a tax deduction, rather than not have to pay it and have the cash in hand. Cuz that's really dumb.
-
No, I'm saying that while the interest rates were much higher, you were able to itemize and deduct the interest for a longer portion of the mortgage. Married couples could itemize for an extra seven years on average.salemcoog said:
As long as the term is or as long as its worth it to do so. It makes no difference.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey look, you are dumb again!salemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
Guess how long you can continue to itemize mortgage interest with a 15% rate vs a 4% rate.
Let may put this in a way that you can understand. Unless you are really trying to say its better to pay interest in so that you may get a tax deduction, rather than not have to pay it and have the cash in hand. Cuz that's really dumb. -
Only the fat drunk mouse. Not Speedy Gonzalez, the fastest mouse in all of Messico.Pitchfork51 said:
Do lazy jokes work for Mexicans?Swaye said:
He says at 11AM. Proves you are a messican btw.Pitchfork51 said:I would like a good crash.
It's too early in the morning for this kind of brain busting shitsalemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
How do you starve a messican?
Hide his food stamps under his work boots.
-
You're problem is, you want to check out of the Hotel California when you 'should' be taking out a HEQ loan as down payment on another rental so you can keep deducting!UWhuskytskeet said:
No, I'm saying that while the interest rates were much higher, you were able to itemize and deduct the interest for a longer portion of the mortgage. Married couples could itemize for an extra seven years on average.salemcoog said:
As long as the term is or as long as its worth it to do so. It makes no difference.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey look, you are dumb again!salemcoog said:
Hey you didn't!!!!... again.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey you said something correct!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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%.
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!!!
Guess how long you can continue to itemize mortgage interest with a 15% rate vs a 4% rate.
Let may put this in a way that you can understand. Unless you are really trying to say its better to pay interest in so that you may get a tax deduction, rather than not have to pay it and have the cash in hand. Cuz that's really dumb.
