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 have taken a firm and unshakable stand. There is simply no one-size-fits-all rule for what percentage of income to spend on housing. The answer depends critically on local and personal circumstances that have quite a high rate of variability.
To some people, traffic lights are an example of "excess government regulation." And don't you know, traffic lights cost all of us billions of dollars in lost all sorts of things every year.
We're not discussing a shortage of traffic lights.
These were originally foreclosures which were sold in bulk by the GSE's around 2012.
These firms also engage in predatory land installment sales and rent-to-buy contracts which end up with the homes staying in the hands of the private equity firms.
Our economy is stuck in neutral or worse and attempts to build bubbles in housing and in stocks do not seem to be spilling over significantly into the real world economy. QE was a policy of 'fixing' stocks, commodities, US housing prices, so that they don't go down. The Fed has managed to prop up housing prices by essentially helping to buy all the bad mortgages on the market, since another drop in housing prices (which I think is inevitable) will destroy US banks.
I do realize that we are living in desperate times. Our leaders are desperate to preserve the status quo, and they are willing to steal all the money in the world from taxpayers and bank depositors to save the status quo. I feel very sorry for our kids and grandkids. How sick and crazy do you have to be to do all this since 2001????????? Our economy has been dead since 2001. Everything since 2001 has been a scam and manipulation to protect the status quo.
Is it? How many weeks of net earnings do YOU think should be spent on housing?
Pub is right. Situations differ, and the percentage that can be intellegently spent on housing differs. This isn't debatable, except in an online forum.
You probably can't be convinced, but I'm posting this to add another voice to counter the bad advice.
Everyone should save, both for their immediate financial security and so they can eventually retire. But there are obviously many routes to get there. Sometimes paying more for housing, even way more, allows other expenses to be much lower, or income to be much higher. For example maybe it involves taking a job in an expensive city to improve pay and career growth. Maybe it means buying in the city you plan to live in forever, which tends to pay off if you keep the house for a long time. Maybe it's paying higher housing costs so your transportation costs can drop to nil.
Sometimes paying more for housing, even way more, allows other expenses to be much lower, or income to be much higher.
For example maybe it involves taking a job in an expensive city to improve pay and career growth.
Maybe it means buying in the city you plan to live in forever, which tends to pay off if you keep the house for a long time.
Maybe it's paying higher housing costs so your transportation costs can drop to nil.
Lot's of maybes there.
I'll turn the question around then.
How high can you psych yourself out to spend of that net ...and still say it can make sense?
How many weeks of net earnings do YOU think should be the limit spent on housing?
We're not discussing a shortage of traffic lights.
You were as soon as you mentioned the worn-out TEA Party punching bag of "excess government regulation."
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.