U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-17-2014, 04:28 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,952,602 times
Reputation: 8962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
What is that price range? $100? $1000?

The private sector can't build homes in a market segment if it costs more to build the home than it can sell it for.

My "price range" ideally would be about that. But I know that housing costs much more than that. So I saved my pennies, and bought what the house costs, not what I think it should cost.

DUH!

The price range is "affordable to households at 30% of metro median family income".

In Portland, in 2014, 30% of median family income for 1 person is $14,600.

30 percent of that - the government standard for affordability - is $4380.

So the relevant price range here is something that would cost $365 per month.

Quantifying...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2014, 04:34 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,952,602 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Yes......thread after thread after thread.

And the answers are always the same.

The OP can not afford a house.....many people can't.

Not to mention the up keep on a home is very expensive.....I think the poster would be shocked to know what a house costs in repairs over the years.

I have employer financing up to $50K. If I can afford paying $650/mo rent, you think I can't afford a $50K house?

First thing I would do is move sales inventory out of storage unit and ramp up sales.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2014, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,695 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15872
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
This is not true just read a standard renters or lease agreement.
Then buy a modular home or a mobile home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
You don't get it. The 30 year mortgage with 20% down is the result of government intervention.
Unnecessary government intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
The 30 year mortgage does not exist without government intervention. 20% down does not exist with government intervention.
Yes, it does.

Are you suggesting there were 84-month auto loans in 1925?

At one time, autos were cash only transactions. Then came loans. For a long time, 12 month loans with 10%-20% down.

Then 18-month loans, then 24-month loans with 0%-10% down and then 36-month at 0% down, 48-month, 60 month, 72-month and now 84-month loans.

The government did nothing....the Free Market did that all by itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
This what you fail to see the housing market with 30 year mortgages and 20% down payments that people think is the free market Is heavily subsidized by the federal government.
Again, you're wrong as usual.

Mortgages were 5 years, 20%-50% down.

If government had taken no action, you'd have still 0% down 30-year fixed mortgages now...because of the Free Market.

Only FHA (and VA) loans are subsidized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
No the hypotheticals about an unsubsidized housing market exists in the minds of conservatives because the US housing market is completely subsidized by the federal government.
The US housing market is not completely subsidized by the federal government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
The history of the US housing market without government subsidies already existed. It lead to a lack of housing overall and homeownership. The market failed badly.
You were debunked on those false claims here....

2000 66.20%
1990 64.20%
1980 64.40%
1970 62.90%
1960 61.90%
1950 55.00%
1940 43.60%
1930 47.80%
1920 45.60%
1910 45.90%
1900 46.50%



1900

United States 46.50%

Alabama 34.40%
Alaska NA
Arizona 57.50%
Arkansas 47.70%
California 46.30%
Colorado 46.60%
Connecticut 39.00%
Delaware 36.30%
Dist. of Columbia 24.00%
Florida 46.80%
Georgia 30.60%
Hawaii NA
Idaho 71.60%
Illinois 45.00%
Indiana 56.10%
Iowa 60.50%
Kansas 59.10%
Kentucky 51.50%
Louisiana 31.40%
Maine 64.80%
Maryland 40.00%
Massachusetts 35.00%
Michigan 62.30%
Minnesota 63.50%
Mississippi 34.50%
Missouri 50.90%
Montana 56.60%
Nebraska 56.80%
Nevada 66.20%
New Hampshire 53.90%
New Jersey 34.30%
New Mexico 68.50%
New York 33.20%
North Carolina 46.60%
North Dakota 80.00%
Ohio 52.50%
Oklahoma 54.20%
Oregon 58.70%
Pennsylvania 41.20%
Rhode Island 28.60%
South Carolina 30.60%
South Dakota 71.20%
Tennessee 46.30%
Texas 46.50%
Utah 67.80%
Vermont 60.40%
Virginia 48.80%
Washington 54.50%
West Virginia 54.60%
Wisconsin 66.40%
Wyoming 55.20%

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hous...ric/owner.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
The US government intervened and lo and behold most American families became homeowners.
In spite of the FHA, home-ownership increased less than 12% from 1940 to 1950.

The US war-boom and post-war boom were responsible for increased homeowner-ship, not government, as well as the automobile. The automobile is what allowed people to flee tax-and-spend Liberal cities for the suburbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
You continue to fail to address the topic of the thread or the content of my posts. It is a waste of time.

Everything I posted is 100% accurate.
No, what you posted is in error.


What is the financial status of the FHA Insurance Fund?
In its latest report to Congress on the status of its insurance funds, FHA reported that for the first time that it does not have sufficient reserves to cover its expected losses. Specifically, FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund, which covers its single-family and reverse mortgage programs, has a negative economic value of $16.3 billion, which is the amount the audit projects the agency would lose if ceased originating loans and covered all its projected losses.

I can see where there's lots of stability there...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2014, 04:42 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,952,602 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
One glaring omission going on in this thread is that if there really was as much demand for low income housing going on as people are claiming AND it was as profitable/can't miss as the proponents of it are claiming...even with Leviathan's meddling, it would exist in sufficient supply.

Thing is, one or both of the claims about low income housing must be untrue. The Laws of Economics are immutable, and if capital was meant to flow to low income housing as the path of least resistance/most economic benefit, it already would flowing there.

??? Government regulations inflate the cost. Even Jack Kemp knew that. What we don't know is what would happen with fewer regulations to drive up costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2014, 04:55 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,952,602 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
So true. OP, just wondering if you've gone to a mortgage broker to get pre-approved to see how much house you can afford at your income and what type of down payment you'll need. It would be heartbreaking if someone did change the zoning and build the small house you want and then you find out for whatever reason you still can't purchase it.

We moved 2000 miles and I worked 2 jobs, 14 hours a day, for nearly 3 years to be able to get the house we wanted. But that's nothing, my great great grandpa traveled across Europe and then across the ocean at 18 years old with no money and unable to read in order to find his new home. You do what you have to do if you really want something.

??? ???

From 2005-2007 my landline ws ringing off the hook with mortgage telemarketers trying to give me a sales pitch.

Finally in the spring of 2007 I smugly and sarcastically took one up on it. He was so sure I could get a mortgage, I was so sure I could not.

They pulled my credit and turned me down. (A health collapse with extended hosptalization and total loss of income trashed my credit a few years before that.)

So there's no way I'm going to qualify in 2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top