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 don't understand why you are complaining. You know you're in the military. You know the military moves you around. Yet, you chose to buy a house knowing you could be moved at a moment's notice and be forced to sell or rent the house, but you still complain? This is not anyone's fault but yours.
Why didn't you just rent wherever you're posted, rather than buying?
If you take that out of context (the part you cut and pasted) it makes her look bad, but if you don't she did nothing wrong....
Those that serve this country have just as much of a right to buy a home as you do!
And I thank her and her family for their service to our country.
If you take that out of context (the part you cut and pasted) it makes her look bad, but if you don't she did nothing wrong....
Those that serve this country have just as much of a right to buy a home as you do!
And I thank her and her family for their service to our country.
So what, I have several close family members that are in the military. My fiance is career military. It's a legitimate question, and I have a legitimate right to ask it. Sure, they are free to buy just like the next person, but to complain about the house they bought when the military moves them, when they know they can be moved at any time, is unreasonable. They chose that route, now don't complain.
Your "bailout" is 50% cheaper equities to invest in... and not losing tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments you're never going to recover because you had to short-sell your house.
I don't understand why you are complaining. You know you're in the military. You know the military moves you around. Yet, you chose to buy a house knowing you could be moved at a moment's notice and be forced to sell or rent the house, but you still complain? This is not anyone's fault but yours.
Why didn't you just rent wherever you're posted, rather than buying?
Are you kidding? These people were nothing but responsible. They lived in the house for 6 years. They couldn't sell the house, so they found a renter. They make their payments on time, even though they now owe more than the house is worth. Many other people would have just walked away, instead of being responsible.
The problem is that most of the neighborhood where their house is located is in forclosure. How is that THEIR fault? They done all they can to keep their house out of foreclosure.
I don't understand why you are complaining. You know you're in the military. You know the military moves you around. Yet, you chose to buy a house knowing you could be moved at a moment's notice and be forced to sell or rent the house, but you still complain? This is not anyone's fault but yours.
Why didn't you just rent wherever you're posted, rather than buying?
We bought at our base, because they were privatizing base housing, and FORCING everyone out of housing to rebuild. We knew we couldn't get orders for at least 4 more years, because I was a member of the EFMP program. We didn't get orders for 7 years after we bought. I never expected to make some sort of huge profit on my house, but why would I ever assume that after making almost 100 mortgage payments ON TIME, plus adding extra principal to the payment every single time, and never taking out any sort of home equity loan, or refinancing for cash out, WHY would I assume that my house would be worth 25K$ LESS than when I bought it???
We knew it was a risk to buy, but we were sure the house was in a good enough neighborhood, that we would be able to rent or sell when the time came. I lectured people hundreds of times abut buying more than they could afford, and I sat back comfortable knowing that even if we did get orders, we could still afford our house, and our kids would have somewhere to call "home". We can still afford our house, and we still continue to pay our mortgage every month on time.
My question is, why is it that everyone who bought more than they could afford, are the ONLY ones that are now eligible for principal reductions on their mortgages? THEIR poor choices affected MY equity also, when its all said and done - THEIR houses will be worth more than mine, because they are newer construction (from the prime of the bubble) but MINE will have a higher mortgage - because the government is bending over backwards to make their homes more affordable for them, but not doing anything for everyone else in the neighborhood who did the RIGHT thing the first time around!
We bought at our base, because they were privatizing base housing, and FORCING everyone out of housing to rebuild. We knew we couldn't get orders for at least 4 more years, because I was a member of the EFMP program. We didn't get orders for 7 years after we bought. I never expected to make some sort of huge profit on my house, but why would I ever assume that after making almost 100 mortgage payments ON TIME, plus adding extra principal to the payment every single time, and never taking out any sort of home equity loan, or refinancing for cash out, WHY would I assume that my house would be worth 25K$ LESS than when I bought it???
We knew it was a risk to buy, but we were sure the house was in a good enough neighborhood, that we would be able to rent or sell when the time came. I lectured people hundreds of times abut buying more than they could afford, and I sat back comfortable knowing that even if we did get orders, we could still afford our house, and our kids would have somewhere to call "home". We can still afford our house, and we still continue to pay our mortgage every month on time.
My question is, why is it that everyone who bought more than they could afford, are the ONLY ones that are now eligible for principal reductions on their mortgages? THEIR poor choices affected MY equity also, when its all said and done - THEIR houses will be worth more than mine, because they are newer construction (from the prime of the bubble) but MINE will have a higher mortgage - because the government is bending over backwards to make their homes more affordable for them, but not doing anything for everyone else in the neighborhood who did the RIGHT thing the first time around!
Look, I'm military too and I just don't know how you guys do it. You ask why would you assume your house would decrease in value? Well, the proof is your current circumstances. If you had rented you wouldn't be in the situation you are in. It takes about 3 years in a nominal historical market just to break even after transaction costs. Nominal officer PCS are about 3-4 years. I recognize being EFMP buys you more slop time, but even at eight years you haven't developed that great of appreciation in a historic market to "assume" away the opportunity cost that your property might *gasp*, DECREASE in value.
The reality is that given the duration of station for most military members, the fact that most STILL desire to purchase just to unload in 4 years is indication that not only do they assume their property will never see a dramatic decrease in value, but that they BANK on the idea that the property will NEVER see a decrease in any value. As fail-proof as you convinced yourself your time frame of homeloanership was, the facts state otherwise. You still gambled and lost. Now, that said I certainly do not agree that those who were even more aggressive in their homeloanership efforts should be rewarded, and it certainly creates a mother of all moral hazards, but people need to do away with this idea that homes never lose value. Homes may have been ATM machines for our parents, but that scheme is over, life is must certainly not fair.
You can paint that pig in all the colors of the rainbow, the fact of the matter is that if my expectation is to live in a place for less than a decade there is no other incentive than the idea of profit for me to enter into a financing agreement on a home. In the absence of that incentive there is no reason I would. Military members of all people would have the LEAST incentive to finance homes, when their departure times are so frequent and comparatively PREDICTABLE. So having said that let's call a spade a spade, the idea of making a profit was the only reason one would finance a home just to unload it in less than 10 years based on the delusion that houses don't lose value. That paradigm is dead and you lost the gamble. Because homeloaners are spring loaded to believe renting is "throwing money away", you're further optimism-biased against the reality that recouping transaction costs and further profiting was in fact a gamble, and not the guarantee that certainly impulsed you into financial hardship, if not destitution.
Let me put it to you this way. I can beat your return on investment on the same 8 years by having all the liquid you put into a downpayment in a simple online savings account at 3-5%. Further include your extra rent in the form of my savings from interest payments, which is the bulk of your mortgage in the first 10 years anyways, as well as maintenance costs and property tax. I still get a standard deduction so the amount of money you had to pay in interest to itemize above and beyond my standard deduction is money I didn't have to cough up. So tax wise you spent a dollar to save 15 cents, and I didn't spend a dime and saved a dollar plus the govt gave me 5K in deduction, free "interest deduction" for me. So I'm already ahead tax wise.
Now compound for eight years with your negative appreciation, and I, the lowly renter, made out like a bandit, not to mention I didn't even sweat maintaining the house and packed up and left for my PCS without losing sleep. Furthermore, even if you had beat my 5% appreciation of my liquid money, which in your case is tied to a roof (not liquid), and you didn't, the hassle of removing a roof over your kids head just to tap into that equity is enough to put me ahead as a renter. So, bottom line, home loanership, when you're not intending to live in the thing less than a decade, is pure gambling, which is fine, but own up to it, don't pawn it off to this disney world for adults notion that "well, um, houses shouldn't, um, houses JUST DON"T LOSE VALUE"....
Look, I'm military too and I just don't know how you guys do it. You ask why would you assume your house would decrease in value? Well, the proof is your current circumstances. If you had rented you wouldn't be in the situation you are in. It takes about 3 years in a nominal historical market just to break even after transaction costs. Nominal officer PCS are about 3-4 years. I recognize being EFMP buys you more slop time, but even at eight years you haven't developed that great of appreciation in a historic market to "assume" away the opportunity cost that your property might *gasp*, DECREASE in value.
I never said I didn't think that might house might decrease in value. I never expected it to decrease in value MORE than the $12K grand in equity I had built up into it in equity over the last 7 years.
Quote:
The reality is that given the duration of station for most military members, the fact that most STILL desire to purchase just to unload in 4 years is indication that not only do they assume their property will never see a dramatic decrease in value, but that they BANK on the idea that the property will NEVER see a decrease in any value. As fail-proof as you convinced yourself your time frame of homeloanership was, the facts state otherwise. You still gambled and lost. Now, that said I certainly do not agree that those who were even more aggressive in their homeloanership efforts should be rewarded, and it certainly creates a mother of all moral hazards, but people need to do away with this idea that homes never lose value. Homes may have been ATM machines for our parents, but that scheme is over, life is must certainly not fair.
The reality is that we were stationed at the same base for 12 years, and will spend the last 8 at the base we are at now . . . and when you understand your career field, and the limited opportunities for movement that exist in it, you can be comfortable with that. We are not medics, or SP's, we are not in constant rotations. There is a 4 month stint across the ocean every 2 years, but that's about it.
Quote:
You can paint that pig in all the colors of the rainbow, the fact of the matter is that if my expectation is to live in a place for less than a decade there is no other incentive than the idea of profit for me to enter into a financing agreement on a home. In the absence of that incentive there is no reason I would. Military members of all people would have the LEAST incentive to finance homes, when their departure times are so frequent and comparatively PREDICTABLE. So having said that let's call a spade a spade, the idea of making a profit was the only reason one would finance a home just to unload it in less than 10 years based on the delusion that houses don't lose value. That paradigm is dead and you lost the gamble. Because homeloaners are spring loaded to believe renting is "throwing money away", you're further optimism-biased against the reality that recouping transaction costs and further profiting was in fact a gamble, and not the guarantee that certainly impulsed you into financial hardship, if not destitution.
There are lots of reasons to enter into a financing agreement on a home, other than to profit on it. I wanted a home for my children to grow up and remember . . . not one that would be torn down by the military, and we got that. I wanted a home I was free to do with as I pleased, and I got that. I wanted the satisfaction and understanding that comes from working hard to transform my house into a home from the top down, and I got that. I also learned about laying tile, painting, rewiring outlets, installing lighting, insulating, plumbing, and all kinds of things I never would have known had I not owned my own house, and had to do it myself.
Quote:
Let me put it to you this way. I can beat your return on investment on the same 8 years by having all the liquid you put into a downpayment in a simple online savings account at 3-5%. Further include your extra rent in the form of my savings from interest payments, which is the bulk of your mortgage in the first 10 years anyways, as well as maintenance costs and property tax. I still get a standard deduction so the amount of money you had to pay in interest to itemize above and beyond my standard deduction is money I didn't have to cough up. So tax wise you spent a dollar to save 15 cents, and I didn't spend a dime and saved a dollar plus the govt gave me 5K in deduction, free "interest deduction" for me. So I'm already ahead tax wise.
Now compound for eight years with your negative appreciation, and I, the lowly renter, made out like a bandit, not to mention I didn't even sweat maintaining the house and packed up and left for my PCS without losing sleep. Furthermore, even if you had beat my 5% appreciation of my liquid money, which in your case is tied to a roof (not liquid), and you didn't, the hassle of removing a roof over your kids head just to tap into that equity is enough to put me ahead as a renter. So, bottom line, home loanership, when you're not intending to live in the thing less than a decade, is pure gambling, which is fine, but own up to it, don't pawn it off to this disney world for adults notion that "well, um, houses shouldn't, um, houses JUST DON"T LOSE VALUE"....
I never said I assumed my house wouldn't lose any of its value. But I also never thought that it would lose 25% of its purchase value, after having 7 years to build equity. As far as your last paragraph there, in 12 years, I will still have a fully paid for house. If you keep renting, you will have . . . nothing. I can still afford my house, and I have no plans to offload it. It just upsets me that others are being rewarded for their poor financial planning. If the government wants to push money back into the economy to resolve our financial crisis, it seems to me that pushing that money into the hands of people who have already shown themselves to be fiscally irresponsible is . . . well, fiscally irresponsible.
I'm buying a house at my new base, too! I have worked my numbers, and I can still fully afford both mortgage payments, even if my tenants do bail on me - that's the best part about buying something you KNOW you can afford!!
In most cases you can't beat the appreaction in the last ten years that a home brought.Also if you thionk the landlrod you rent from is losing moeny on the house you rent and he owjns thionk again. Inmsot araes he pays more in property taxes being rent property.Just as most investmants dropped so has housing but in most cases not by a average of 505 in most areas. Nothign wornd with renting as long as you don;t think the owners is not making a profit wowning it. Most landlords own their own home for a reason which is the same as most homeowners.By the way I know several military people that have made alot of moenhy and lived free in their homes for sometime because they bought and sold over the last 15 years each time at a proifit compared to what they had in the home.Many had very little invested and planned it that way because they knew they would be moving alot. hard to beat living in a home in a nice neioghbothood and in teh end making more moeny than you invested ;living all the while for free.
What? You are expected to pay the bill. Remember, all that money you were saving by not buying that you put into the stock market! Oh wait.
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.
