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.
Well the fact that time ain’t your friend sometimes has left many in the tri state area with paid off homes they can’t retire to .
A 30-35k home like we all bought in the 1970s has those mortgages long gone ..but 12-15k a year in taxes and renovations that are needed decades later that cost 3x as much as the house did have made these homes unaffordable over time to keep .
So many are forced to relocate now because those dollars no longer spent because of paid off mortgages won’t even cover utilities today. Those houses they raised their families in now do them no good in retirement.
That is the sad truth about homeownership over the long term in many areas..
But, since you don't own it, I can remove the improvements from the land, right?
Of course that is as ridiculous as a claim that a homeowner doesn't own a home they own.
Irresponsibility does NOT connote that you are not the owner.
Pay your taxes.
There are vast numbers of properties all throughout the U.S. and beyond -- you aren't allowed to go around removing the improvements from any of them, unless you own them yourself. Whether trobesmom or the bank or some other entity owns the property makes no difference. If you and I don't own the property, then we can't remove the improvements -- otherwise we'd be vandals or thieves.
The debate about the word "own" is a red herring. "Own" is just a word and it has some nuances.
Semantics aside, the core point is that many people believe homeownership will give them rock-solid security, especially when the mortgage is paid off. Those who say "you don't really own it" are emphasizing that the security is not all that complete. You will never have total, unassailable control of a piece of real estate.
There are vast numbers of properties all throughout the U.S. and beyond -- you aren't allowed to go around removing the improvements from any of them, unless you own them yourself. Whether trobesmom or the bank or some other entity owns the property makes no difference. If you and I don't own the property, then we can't remove the improvements -- otherwise we'd be vandals or thieves.
The debate about the word "own" is a red herring. "Own" is just a word and it has some nuances.
Semantics aside, the core point is that many people believe homeownership will give them rock-solid security, especially when the mortgage is paid off. Those who say "you don't really own it" are emphasizing that the security is not all that complete. You will never have total, unassailable control of a piece of real estate.
You will never have total, unassailable control of ANYTHING in life. Nothing.
Ownership is ownership. It is NOT simple-minded "total, unassailable control."
The fact is owning a home as I said above is not the be all and end all to having a place you can live in forever if you wanted to ..it all depends how much all the other costs rise and whether one can afford them .
It may allow you to sell at a profit like any other asset but as far as providing that secure place to live , hundreds of thousands in our area can tell you that just wasn’t so as now they must relocate to somewhere cheaper , many away from family and friends
Depends a lot on where you own. If you go out into a remote area there is little taxation, codes or zoning. Tax and other stuff people frequently moan about pays for infrastructure, emergency services and schools.
Do you want to live in a city that lets itself deteriorate for the sake of not paying taxes?
The fact is owning a home as I said above is not the be all and end all to having a place you can live in forever if you wanted to ..it all depends how much all the other costs rise and whether one can afford them .
It may allow you to sell at a profit like any other asset but as far as providing that secure place to live , hundreds of thousands in our area can tell you that just wasn’t so as now they must relocate to somewhere cheaper , many away from family and friends
in some fashion, each of those people chose to live and own homes in those locations.
I would guesstimate that, even after taxes/inflation, the net growth in value exceeds the property tax and repairs expense.
if people chose to live in an area where either the mortgage or the PITI took up so much of their income that they could not additionally invest in a retirement account so they could cover daily expenses and the utilities and the property taxes, whose problem is that?
So, what are you trying to do exactly? Buy a plot of land and make it into a separate country?
I might, when I get my tax refund.
Point being, people are sold the dream of the "paid off house!" and they work for many years to achieve it, sometimes to the exclusion of other goals. Sometimes they find, as mathjak107 noted, that it was a mirage. Homeownership often has a role in a sound financial life, but it's not the be-all and end-all. It's also not the only way.
Umm, In the US, you still don't really own it even after the house got paid off, in my POV. In the states with the high property taxes like NY, NJ, IL, WI, etc.. people still obligated to pay 5k -15k yearly. If some people unable to make the payments, they can lose the houses.
Move to some countries where property taxes are insignificant, then you really own your house.
What is insignificant is subjective. What is insignificant to me and you may not be significant to Bob and Sally.
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.