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.
Yeah I hated to see that. I've always loved Hollywood Beach. Hate to see the change.
Yeah last time I went about a year ago , it was when the big Margaritaville project was still under construction. I was thinking , this place is probably going to be different in the future. Lot's of reasonably priced places right on the beach, but I imagine in the future it will be like South Beach , or like the beach cities in Southern California.
Yeah last time I went about a year ago , it was when the big Margaritaville project was still under construction. I was thinking , this place is probably going to be different in the future. Lot's of reasonably priced places right on the beach, but I imagine in the future it will be like South Beach , or like the beach cities in Southern California.
Ugh. Really dislike South Beach. Hollywood was always "old style". Dania too. Caught a lot of rays on those beaches.
No actually not, what? Number of houses owned per person? What does that have to do with a mortgage and retirement??
If you divorce, and neither party can afford to keep the house, (which usually happens), then the house is SOLD and the proceeds are split. Someone else will now be paying a new mortgage. And 2 other people will be buying either older smaller homes, or renting, or moving in with someone else. And if they are older, then that house will probably not be paid off in their lifetime.
And don't forget about those 2nd mortgages that so many people have.
Fair. But what about when the divorcees remarry (for those who do so)? Won't they sell one house and be able to pay down the other? I suppose if they had a very expensive divorce and 2-3 sets of realtor fees I can see how that might wipe away the equity they built up over the last 10-15 years (or 1/2 of the last 10-15 years of one couple and 1/2 of the other couple). And the second mortgages, yeah, if people are treating their house as an ATM I can see it being an issue.
Huh? Sorry, really can't grasp what you're trying to say. SOme people own more than one house. Some people will never own a house themselves and will always live in houses owned by others. I see no logic pointing to "one person, one owned house" (what you call 'unity').
Not to be insulting, but it really seems like you're grasping at some bigger commentary that you're unwilling to state directly.
Not apart from what I already mentioned in post #19 - this points either to very high wealth inequality or we should see more outright ownership in the decades to come.
Fair. But what about when the divorcees remarry (for those who do so)? Won't they sell one house and be able to pay down the other?
You are assuming that the house has increased in value enough that there is a lot of equity in it. It happens, but it surely is not the norm. Remember that the earlier years of the loan is mostly interest. Principal really doesn't start getting a dent until many years into the loan. Most divorced parties will wind up with nothing more than a down-payment, at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
I suppose if they had a very expensive divorce and 2-3 sets of realtor fees I can see how that might wipe away the equity they built up over the last 10-15 years (or 1/2 of the last 10-15 years of one couple and 1/2 of the other couple). And the second mortgages, yeah, if people are treating their house as an ATM I can see it being an issue.
My sister just went through this. Not an "expensive" divorce at all, but her share of the house proceeds (about 10 years of equity) would just give her enough to put a good down-payment on a smaller house, or a condo. Her only other option would be to refinance (which MANY people do, and then the life of the loan is extended of course) so that her payment is affordable. But she'd never be able to pay it off.
There is nothing black and white about this, at all. Lots and lots of different scenarios to consider.
And as far as your #19 post, houses DO keep getting more expensive. But the newer ones are a lot more than the older ones. Even if I sold my house today, to buy a newer one (or larger - otherwise I wouldn't want to sell) I'd be looking at a lot more $$. So while my proceeds would definitely put a dent in the new one, my mortgage would extend far beyond my current one. And I'd be starting all over on the interest again.
Last edited by ChessieMom; 06-20-2016 at 08:45 PM..
I would have loved to have inherited and lived in my childhood home. The problem is it's an area you really can't make a living in. My dad thought cities were terrible, crime ridden places to live so he moved us out to a small town. My dad was willing to commute 2-3 hours everyday for the city to work, but did takes it toll over the years. Low COL areas are cheap for a good reason!
I enjoy the older homes compared to what is built today. Especially in the summer because older homes were not built airtight and stayed cooler. The newer homes practically assume you want to run AC, I don't like AC because it wrecks havoc on my sinuses and costs a fortune.
Was this a relatively new neighborhood? Or was it one that was established for a long time like 50+ years?
What I noticed during the crash in Los Angeles is that the most expensive areas didn't really go down much, but quite a few of the 'non prime' areas went down a lot. The prime areas have a lot of people with paid off houses that bought the houses many years ago when prices were a lot lower.
It makes you wonder if a neighborhood is filled with high income earners why they would pull out money from their home for cars,boats,vacations. I'm guessing so much of that income went to pay the big mortgages on the nice homes, and they didn't have cash left over to buy the toys.
People viewed their homes like an ATM with a small interest rate.
It's too bad that it affects those that were responsible.
The neighborhood was built in the late 1990s. Many corporate executives from nearby towns lived here. Many of these corporate HQ have moved out of CT. There also was a much higher than average divorce rate among these high-income earners. However, the general trend of CT in general has been flat or declining sales prices of new and existing homes. Values have fallen nearly every year since 2009 in most towns with the exception of Fairfield County and a few more desirable communities near Hartford which saw lower declines in value. Younger families are looking for more self-contained communities that have shopping, entertainment and activities within town. There also is an obsession on the perceived value of good schools.
If a typical house can last so much longer than a typical generation time (~30 years), and the typical mortgage term of 30 years, then why isn't it more common for the average Joe to own a home outright? If most Americans actually have to pay rent/mortgage, then it would seem that, for whatever reason, in a sense the average housing unit is actually paid for 2-3 times over in its lifetime. What gives?
Population growth? If this is the answer to the riddle, then more and more people should be owning outright as population growth slows, right?
Irresponsible personal behavior is the answer. The correct procedure is to buy less house than you can afford, and pay it off. What we actually see it people re-borrowing through the mechanism of refinance to buy things they cannot afford and should not have. And of course, doing other things in the wrong order and at the wrong time that create additional debt that stifles and destroy the quality of their lives (picking bad mates, accidental children, the choice of using drugs, alcohol, compulsive behaviors, etc.) All of these behaviors prevent or delay paying off a mortgage and achieving financial independence.
However, there are plenty of smart people that pay off their mortgage, often early, and are living the good life of homeownership without debt. But it does take personal focus, discipline, self-denial, hard work, and overall excellence.
Irresponsible personal behavior is the answer. The correct procedure is to buy less house than you can afford, and pay it off. What we actually see it people re-borrowing through the mechanism of refinance to buy things they cannot afford and should not have. And of course, doing other things in the wrong order and at the wrong time that create additional debt that stifles and destroy the quality of their lives (picking bad mates, accidental children, the choice of using drugs, alcohol, compulsive behaviors, etc.) All of these behaviors prevent or delay paying off a mortgage and achieving financial independence.
However, there are plenty of smart people that pay off their mortgage, often early, and are living the good life of homeownership without debt. But it does take personal focus, discipline, self-denial, hard work, and overall excellence.
I can believe this. Though the stats on HELOC debt suggest most homeowners do not have it, cash-out refinancing of primary mortgages to buy toys, vacations, or pay off credit cards is not counted in those stats.
When my parents bought their first home other families were in a similar situation as them, also buying a first home. My parents paid $13,000 and many paid a similar amount back then. Home values went up. One family sold their home on our street and bought a new home in a new development. They were able to sell the older home on our street for more than they paid but less than the cost of the new home. I remember that the home cost $100,000 and I thought that they were rich. How foolish I was at such a young age. LOL
Realize that the old house was not worth $100,000 so they had a new loan for much more than the original loan on the first home, the place my parents lived for 38 years. So while my parents maintained the same small mortgage of $105 a month these people had a new mortgage. I have no idea what their mortgage was as I don't know how much money they put into it from the first home.
Within 12 years they sold that home and bought a home on the beach. I know that the beach home cost them a lot more than the $100,000 home. I am betting that back then because it was not an ocean front home that they probably spent at least $300,000 for that home. So more debt. They were only in that home for about 5 or 6 years when they sold it and moved to Tennessee. I am betting that they paid cash for a home there though.
My point is that most people keep moving up into more costly homes never paying them off, or so it would seem.
I figure it is best to not be like most people. Buy what you can afford and pay it off. Invest the rest and save for retirement. When you are older you won't want to maintain a big home and if you kept your first house you probably won't have that big of house to maintain anyway. LOL
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.
