Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I looked at a home in SE Charlotte with similar specs in 1993 for $189,000. (Near Cotswald) I didn't buy it because the furnace core was cracked and the owner didn't want to pay for it.
We have different memories on the matter however I don't deny what you said. However it doesn't change what I said about putting down on a home. This is what is being argued in the hypothetical example given.
In everything I post here, I am all about accuracy.
This is why I just could not let your inaccurate assertion stand unchallenged.
You claimed "By 1990, $100K would not have bought much of a house." And that is simply not true.
I'm curious if you would let the boat sink for arguing that the red pail was better for bailing water rather than the blue one. That statement does not say no equity. After 22 years of payments, you barely paid off 50% of the mortgage vs having more than twice this for paying it off in 10 years.
The point was about putting down 20% on a house plus having a year's emergency expenses in the bank. You sound as if you took offense at this so if so, then I apologist for getting you so upset. Your hypothetical examples, including this one does not show by any means this isn't a good plan. That is, summed up, is that your goal should be to get out of debt, completely, as early as you can in life.
I read that statement as saying basically no equity, but then again I'm not sure if it was even in English.
Your hypothetical examples were much worse than mine. You were comparing putting 5% down and making no extra payments to putting 20% down and then paying it off early. You do know you are still allowed to make extra payments if you put less than 20% down, right?
If you read the first post I made in this thread, you would have seen that I did say it was a good plan to put down 20% if you are fortunate enough to have it. But unless you live with your parents for 5+ years while working full-time, then it's a lot easier said than done to just have $75K laying around.
I read that statement as saying basically no equity, but then again I'm not sure if it was even in English.
Your hypothetical examples were much worse than mine.
I simply said that buying a $100K house in the 1980s (which you first mentioned) was more difficult than buying a $250K house in the 2000s. (which you also mentioned) The statement proved to be true using numbers, that you provided. You thought it was a fine example until the inflation math proved that your conclusion was wrong. Then it all of a sudden became a "much worse example".
Not willing to accept the simple math you then created another example changing it to the 1990s and 2010s and adding 2 more years. It also proved my original point about being better off by getting out of housing debt.
In all of this nonsense, you have never actually addressed the point that I originally made except to state an opinion on it. You are entitled to this opinion, but opinions are not facts. I won't address this opinion any further as it's apparent you really are not interesting in having a discussion on the matter. My comments were directed towards the OP and not meant to instruct you on you on the debt that you already have.
I simply said that buying a $100K house in the 1980s (which you first mentioned) was more difficult than buying a $250K house in the 2000s. (which you also mentioned) The statement proved to be true using numbers, that you provided. You thought it was a fine example until the inflation math proved that your conclusion was wrong. Then it all of a sudden became a "much worse example".
Not willing to accept the simple math you then created another example changing it to the 1990s and 2010s and adding 2 more years. It also proved my original point about being better off by getting out of housing debt.
In all of this nonsense, you have never actually addressed the point that I originally made except to state an opinion on it. You are entitled to this opinion, but opinions are not facts. I won't address this opinion any further as it's apparent you really are not interesting in having a discussion on the matter. My comments were directed towards the OP and not meant to instruct you on you on the debt that you already have.
Okay, so you obviously didn't read my first post in this thread then, also addressed to the OP. For the third time, I said that it was a good idea to put down the 20% if you have it, but if you don't, I don't think it should be a requirement (as you do). If no one ever bought a house without 20% down, then that $100K house in the 1980's would probably still be $100K today. That may not have been a bad thing, but that didn't happen, so in order to buy a house now some people will have to put down less than 20%. I'm sure you'll say "well they shouldn't buy a house then" but again, with rents rising well above the cost of monthly mortgage payments, if you can comfortably afford the monthly payment and still have some emergency funds, then people getting loans without putting 20% down are not the devil.
I actually laughed out loud at you saying I didn't use any facts. I have used a ton of facts and cited several different sources in this thread, meanwhile you've been making stuff up like saying that $100K wouldn't have bought much house in 1990.
The comparison you made which I was referring to as pretty terrible was that you were basically assuming that someone that put down 20% would pay their loan off much earlier than 30 years and someone that put down less than 20% would not pay a penny more than their minimum payment, which simply isn't true.
And again, my original numbers comparison was not $100K to $250K. I was using $200K just to be nice...since you brought up inflation I used the $250K since you were the one that said it was a lot easier to buy a $100K house in the 1980's then it was to buy a $250K house now. Yes, you said now, not in the 2000's. If we're talking 2000's, interest rates were not 4% (which is what I used in my examples) in the 2000's, in 2005 which you brought up they were closer to 6. Here is one last comparison for you which hopefully fulfills all your prerequisites:
30-year loan at 10.5% on $80,000: principal and interest: $731.79
(since you were complaining about me saying 1990, even though I did admit that I probably should have said 90's instead of 80's originally, nonetheless rates were around 10.5% in 1986-1989)
30-year loan at 6% interest on $214,360 (even adjusted the original $20K downpayment for inflation): principal and interest: $1285.20
$731.79 in 1986 adjusted for inflation in 2005 = $1304.
Phew, those $20 extra dollars really make it much harder to buy a $100K house in 1980 than a $250K house in 2005.
Okay, so you obviously didn't read my first post in this thread then,
Correct. It was absolutely irrelevant to what I had to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
insightful and meaningful article
